Moral Health

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.

He stole my signature. :laughing:

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.

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?

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, ----…

phyllo,

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 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.

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?

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.

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)
myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/Su … 20life.pdf
.

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. [size=50] …if you ever did.[/size]

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.

First you ask :

Then you suggest that I have nothing to offer:

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. :frowning:

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

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:

hartmaninstitute.org/about/ … s-hartman/