After watching this video, I must demand the last 5 minutes of my life back.
This is the dumbest video I have ever seen. It explains nothing, shows nothing,
and that could be forgiven if it was even vaguely entertaining but it wasn’t.
It didn’t say anything about ethics, just teenage crap nonsense about the world.
Morality does take years of study and I applaud anyone who attempts it because it
is quite the study as for this steaming pile of crap video, it may have set back
the human race by decades it was so bad.
Now, it is suggested you actually (go so far as to) read the paper.
You will find the principles exactly where the Preface says they are, namely, early in the first chapter; and then, as a free bonus, several more principles are offered in last chapter of the little booklet. Philosophers, philosophy students, and lovers of philosophy ought to be willing to read a paper …or am I wrong about that?
It’s not a Dissertation, you know. It’s much shorter than that.
After all, it’s not a book !
Someone who cares enough about Ethical Theory would have the curiosity to pursue it further…
----I would add this sentence to The Principle of Inclusivity, mentioned at the bottom of p.25: Change “us and them” to “we.”
By the way, although I didn’t write this in the paper, I could have: An ethical person would not have fun at the expense of others, nor would he attempt to get ahead at the expense of others. As to why this is so, see the Definition of the field in this new paradigm for Ethics.
I asked for the principles in order to decide whether I should give the paper a try. In reply, I get patronising stuff like this. Well, that’s decisive!
I wouldn’t dream of hurting anyone’s feelings!!! I regard everyone as my family, and feel loving towards them, as a result of my study of Ethics.
There was no intention on my part to be patronizing. As explained in Chapter 7 of the paper, which is on the topic of how to avoid emotional suffering and keep peace-of-mind, if a piece of writing is interpreted in some negative way where it is taken to be an attack on one’s ego (or self-image), that is the interpreter’s problem. That was a professorial tone of voice you read in the previous post, I will confess.
However, I can’t help being ‘professorial’ since I am a professor of Ethics as well as a professional ethicist. [I’ve received remuneration for business consulting.] But this thread is not about me; it is about building the best-possible-at this time Theory of Ethics.
As you will note I did give a principle in my recent post, and did tell where to find more details explaining it.
If what was written in the last paragraph of that post did not apply to an individual I trust that he or she would not take it personally, as per the old adage:
IF THE SHOE DOESN’T FIT, DON’T WEAR IT.
Ethics is too vast a field to have only one principle (that will do the whole job). The principles form a web; they are interrelated. That is why, Sauwelios, I could not give a satisfying answer to your question.
How do the rest of readers feel about the issues, and about the points raised in the linked reference? Does it contribute to an improved Theory of Ethics?
If I had to sum up the essence of my latest booklet, Ethics for the 21st Century: Keys to the good life, in a few words it would be these:
As a human species, we are each prewired to aim for our personal benefit. This could be referred to as ‘a universal aim of ethics.’ The question then becomes: What best provides us this benefit? How do we gain it? Can science offer any answers?
In pursuit of that primary aim we all yearn for meaning: how can we make sense out of our existence? We aim for a quality life; we want to make a difference; we want life to be meaningful.
We want the security that comes with peace instead of constant threat, instead of excessive stress, and violence, and conflict that borders on violence - for this wears us down and ages us prematurely. We flourish when we experience joy, serenity and peace of mind.
We want some recognition, some attention [even if we think we can attain it by arguing “My mother is better than your mother !” …or by 'putting someone down" so that we may feel superior to another. There are many ignorant ways we seek to find meaning when we don’t know our Ethics.]
…continuing with the summation of the new Ethical theory:
Human beings are a part of nature and have less suffering in life when they comply with natural order - with nature’s laws.
Gravity, cause/effect, entropy, and neg-entropy are such laws. Negentropy means order and value. We do best when we get in harmony with nature; hence value creation is in our interest. (This refers to positive value.) As a matter of fact we make evaluations of some sort all day long; in that sense we are value creators. We yearn, though, for a quality life; we want to squeeze the most value out of life that we can. Value creation is in our interest. We best attain our self-interest when we maximize the value in life. The question then arises: How do we maximize value? What are some ways? The booklet probes that question and offers some tentative answers.
We all do better when we ALL do better. This implies we work for social justice. We adopt policies designed to enhance the quality of life for all.
Click on the first link below in the signature to see how it shapes up.
Human beings are human beings mainly (about 98%) because of their culture/s. Do you want them to completely return to nature, to completely become animals?
See, that’s the problem with quick responses: one asks a question, and others get entirely wrong impressions. It is possible that you want the humans to completely return to nature, to completely become animals, because you did not exclude it in your posts.
I asked you a valid question. So would you mind answering it?
ARminius asks, “Do you want the humans to completely return to nature, to completely become animals?”
No. The booklet does not recommend that.
It does say it is wise to comply with natural law such as gravity, value creation, and stepping out of the path of moving vehicles. It does recommend honesty as a way of life.
The claims are argued; and I believe you, being intelligent, will be able to follow the arguments.
The idea is to construct a better Ethical Theory than is presently being taught in classrooms - with a view to turning out less-corruptible human beings who will get along harmoniously with fellow members of their species.
You should not be surprised if someone asks you whether you want the humans to completely return to nature, to completely become animals, because you refer to generalities like nature.
There is the word “revolution” in the title of this thread, and we have had enough so-called “revolutions” and all of them have been more than gruesome.
Why do you think that there has to be a better ethical theory than the one that is presently being taught in classrooms (of the US, I guess, right?)?
Look around you, Arminius. Is the world as ethical as you would like to see it be?
Are people clear in their values - or are they confused? Is there not a perpetual state of war on this planet? Has humankind abused the planet (which is its habitat) and thus obtained for itself the expense in time, sweat, and treasure of more-frequent-than-usual severe floods, droughts, tsunamis hurricanes, forest fires, etc. Isn’t the polluting of the air and water self-defeating and counterproductive?
Do you see violent disputes taking place? Do you notice corruption? Do you experience people using words that hurt rather than heal?
Could we use our time, effort, and money better if we cooperated harmoniously, closed our perceptual gaps, settled our quarrels in an effective manner, built rather than burned?
Would you like to see constructive solutions rather than destructive behavior?
If your reply is Yes to any of this, then I think you can answer the question in the quote above for yourself.
When you study with care my latest writings you will understand how those who take the course will likely be assigned by teachers of it to do some good deed of their own choosing; and then report to the class how it turned out – how the recipient felt and how s/he - the student - felt afterwards.
What did you think of the argument in that little booklet, ETHICS FOR THE 21at CENTURY - [See the first selection in the Reading List below]
1. Harmonious cooperation
2. Social justice
3. A quality life for the individuals living in it. A
quality life includes peace of mind for the
inhabitants of an ethical world.
What if difference is fundamental to the ‘better life’.
What if suffering is fundamental to the ‘better life’.
as in my first reply here; viewtopic.php?f=1&t=188347
How may I cooperate with someone who wants a different thing to occur compared to my vision. Imagine one who wishes to build a round house and one who wishes to build a square house, but there is only enough land for one house. This is analogous to difference in the same world. To attain order harmony and cooperation, we all have to conform to universal standards, and eventually to a worldwide universal standard. It’s happening right now, and we are living in the application of similar philosophy. It says it is all accepting e.g. Of race, colour, culture, but in the end you have to all build square houses and be square people, all ‘roundhousers’ will be destroyed [as is happening].
I do not accept that premiss
[size=93] (Firstly, I thank you for opening the pamphlet. Did you finish it yet?) [/size] Let me tell you why I don’t accept that notion.
Outer space is very vast in this universe. Can we possibly build homes on our Moon?
While you are imagining, and asking us to do so with you, why not imagine that there are multiple universes? …
There is plenty of room on which to erect a house here on this spaceship on which we are all traveling. Buck Fuller designed, years ago, homes that could hang from trees and yet be quite stable and workable. There are vast regions on this Earth that are not being put to good use.
First we have to care.
Then we have to resolve to only support policies designed to enhance the quality of life for all.
And we need to get rid of our pessimism; it is a sickness ! This is explained on pp. 44-46 of LIVING THE GOOD LIFE. [size=85] {Click on the third link in the signature below if you want to see the argument.}[/size]
Instead of dwelling upon what can’t be done, we need to educate ourselves until we have an “I CAN” and and a 'CAN DO" attitude!!! We need to encourage creativity - and inclusivity.
You are correct, Amorphos, when you say: there will be suffering. It is human to mourn at the loss of a loved one - or to grieve whenever we have just lost something - say, a body part - or some project or activity that we loved. Suffering will occur. However, as Buddha is said to have counseled: Dwell not on what your have lost. Dwell instead on what you will gain."
[size=89]{I am well aware that, morally speaking, right after the death of a spouse it is too early to think about that.[/size]}
Firstly may i say that generally i agree with your sentiment but i just don’t think that’s how such principles are manifest or utilised. You have a mass of different things and are trying to swamp it with a singularity; harmony demands similarity.
Fine - if you can accept that some people will be different, and think differently. A single set of ethics is a doctrine and to the analogy i made, all square houses with no round houses. Harmony requires similarity and so it doesn’t matter how big the universe is [atm we just have the world], as the philosophy is the same regardless of scale. Then the point is that people have sharply contrasting values, and the difference is what causes the duality. Harmony has to remove the differences enough for it [harmony] to exist, and that means conformity.
We are told to be globalists, capitalists, to take any job [to suffer if you don’t], and are forced to ‘volunteer’ ~ everyone has to be part of the machine. Such is the globalist doctrine of the west, and it uses the same language as is here. All of this is rolled up under the disguise of moralism and ethics of the righteous ”Then we have to resolve to only support policies designed to enhance the quality of life for all”~ because who can argue with the fundamental principles! Well i will. This usually and currently means a war on extremism and in Israel equates as barriers between ‘non-extremists’ and ‘extremists’/difference.
All i am saying is that individuality necessarily requires duality, and that the eye viewing harmony sees this duality as the problem, and not that it itself is propagating and pushing that duality into further extremes. There is a difference between pushing and showing people the way. …even Buddhism has dharma ~ the way to act properly.
I used that word to call attention to the topic. All social “revolutions” end up being evolutions.
What I am dong is philosophy, namely, showing distinctions, defining terms, suggesting analogies, highlighting contrasts, finding similarities, all with the aim of clarifying concepts. The word "revolution is ambiguous. Perhaps you are thinking of violence, such as occurred in the French Revolution and in the American Revolution. What I meant by the word is a shakeup in conventional thinking, a new package. Except for the definition of “value” and the new way of conceiving of intrinsic value, the ideas in my latest booklet are found in the traditions of moral philosophy, in the history of ideas. It is even the case what what the genius Robert S.Hartman spoke of as “Intrinsic Value” is very close to what Edmund Husserl called “Intentionality.” And it is no surprise when we learn that Hartman was a student in Husserl’s class.
There are no new ideas under the Sun. Yet there are new paradigms, new models.
What I offer, in Ethics for the 21st Century myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ET … ENTURY.pdf is a frame–of-reference that you if you are a teacher could use as a text in your classrooms when you teach a course in Ethics.
I will upgrade it soon by adding value to it; I will add to it a Prologue and an Epilogue based upon what I wrote here in earlier posts in this thread when I was summing up some of thee points for which I argued in the booklet.
EVERYONE: What were your impressions when you read it? Did you approach it constructively - as would an ethical individual.
Can any readers suggest improvements.
Btw, I do recognize differences both in individuals and in cultures. I advocate variety … within a unity. I promote individuality. I don’t agree that harmony requires conformity ! [size=85]You will note that those who declare that to be a fact do not define their terms. They depend on vagueness and ambiguity; and as a result they may offer very weak arguments.[/size]
I return to the suggestion I made earlier. It would help a person enormously if he would just read the paper. …carefully… and 
