Moral Health

:slight_smile:

Yea. :slight_smile:

Greetings, Prismatic

Thank you for a very constructive response :exclamation:

I shall take your suggestions into serious consideration, and from your contribution I have learned of possible improvements to the concept I was putting forth. And, incidentally, in a book published in 1969, entitled SCIENCES OF MAN AND SOCIAL ETHICS, yours truly proposed the concept “HQ” which stood for “Humanity Quotient.” So you and I seem to think along the same lines.

Science measures everything; and ideas are to be measured by the Correspondence Theory of Truth, not merely by the Coherence Theory. The test is: Do our beliefs about ethics correspond with facts and with evidence? These days my project is to make a science out of Ethics, and I have witnessed some progress in this direction. Both Moral Psychology and Applied Formal Axiology are the experimental branches of this new science. …More about that later.

Also we have seen the advent of several versions of a Happiness Index, and a ‘Best Company to work for’ Index. Now, in four countries, there are many practitioners, coaches, and therapists who employ the H.V.P. in their work.

…Very encouraging developments.

Yes, at times impulse-control is the right way to go. Long-term studies of kindergarten kids who deferred eating immediately marshmallows offered them by Psychologists, in order to get more of them a little later, concluded that those kids were more successful in later life than those who could not control their urge to grab the available treats and scarf them down. Good parenting includes admonishing your child who, for example, gave in to an impulse to swipe something, or some money, it desired out of a lady’s purse, etc.

Have no fear, Artemus, I have no use for “health systems” either !!

And Hahaha - we are aware of the problem; we are seeking solutions. Be careful not to fall into the trap of cynicism. It accomplishes nothing.

I agree with you, and Shakespeare, that all the world’s a stage, and we are all players.

The Hartman/Katz model for Ethical Theory, when its analysis turns to Norms, as presented in BASIC ETHICS, p. 19 - 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. As is the case with the moral principles derived in this new paradigm, the model proposed, this prediction is a testable hypothesis which can, and already does, correspond with reality. There are no absolutes in science. As Einstein noted, “if it is certain, it is not science. If it is science, it is not certain.”

Those with a good score in the MQ, the Moral Quotient - in other words, those with moral wisdom, respect the findings of scientific Ethics, and keep posted on the latest research coming from its experimental branches.

Furthermore, they have humility. They would not ever think of themselves as somehow superior morally to someone else with a low score; for they are nonjudgmental when it comes to morality.

Comments? Questions?

They sound like saints. And that’s only with a ‘good’ MQ score.
I can’t even imagine the ones with a great score. :smiley:

Best way to increase the IQ is through altering someone’s DnA. Giving them seminars about morality ain’t gonna do anything.

Who said anything about" giving them seminars"?

In contrast, for more-effective alternatives, see pp. 17-21 of Living Well, the first pamphlet linked to below.

And in the selection listed second on the list of references, Ethics for the 21st Century, there also are several sections on how ethical knowledge may spread and be adopted, and eventually even become conventionally accepted as normalcy.

Also, FYI, phyllo, one doesn’t have to be a saint to have humility. Those who have it usually do not feel morally superior to others.

How do those two statements work together?

If you don’t feel morally superior are you not undervaluing yourself compared to another person? 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 believe Morality and Ethics [like religion] should be a personal and private matter. In that case there is no need to compare one self to others. What is needed is one should strive to continuously improve their Morality Quotient [MQ] which I think has a greater neural plasticity than IQ.

One point is when one start comparing one MQ, the state of comparison [low self-esteem] is a negative reduction on one MQ itself.

Whilst Morality and Ethics [like religion] should be a personal and private matter, what is public will be dealt within politics, legislature and the judiciary system.

Since morality and ethics deals with the correct conduct between two or more people, it can’t possibly be ‘personal and private’. Some of the interactions can be considered private, but most involve the public or community.

This sounds like you are separating morality and ethics and the legal system.

The legal system is a product of the morality of a society.

Moral health?

It would then seem if any of this bullshit is true which I highly doubt that we’re going through the terminally ill stage of life support. :laughing:

Who or what exactly is going to pull the plug?

OK, I think my ‘personal and private’ statement without qualification is misleading.

No man is an island. As in religion being exhorted by many to be a personal and private matter, believers still need to interact with other believers on religious matters and non-believers on secular matters.
What I meant is Morality [especially] and ethics is personal [ok, not too private] at their fundamental level.

The development of one’s Moral Quotient and Ethical Quotient is more to develop one’s moral, ethical and conscience [note] competence. Such practices are confined primarily to the individual[s] plus necessary interactions with the collective.

This is a question of Pure and Applied, i.e. Pure Morality and Applied Ethics.

Pure Morality and Applied Ethics plus development of one’s conscience competence is personal and is not enforced by external authorities. In applied ethics one is guided by the highest moral principle and one’s conscience competence. One’s conscience is the Jury and the Judge within one’s mind before and after the ethical act.

The legal system adopt from Pure Morality what is supposedly the highest or appropriate moral principles and convert them into laws that are enforceable on the individual[s]. How these authority convert Pure Morality into laws that are enforceable is very relative to their collective interests, e.g. political legal laws, religious laws, social laws, conventional norms, etc.

Human morality in a nutshell: Do as I say not as I do. Authority’s violence and coercion is law, everybody else’s is a crime. Anything else on the subject of human morality or ethics is total bullshit.

I have yet to meet anyone to prove the opposite. Any challengers? :sunglasses:

No, I didn’t think so either…

This can be applied to relationships as well. The girl of your dreams is allowed to kiss and have sex with anyone she wants, but if you want to it’s evil and against the rules.

Thiefdr, thanks for your response.

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

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 [size=67], in this new paradigm,[/size] 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 :exclamation:

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?

Never mind, Thinkdr. :slight_smile:

It was just a bit funny.

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.

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.

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.