Can there be shared community values?

It came to my attention that the wife of the former CEO and founder of the J. M. Smucker Company is active in the civic life of Orrville, Ohio, USA. Among her many other philanthropic activities, she coordinated the initiation of the Heartland Educational Community, Inc. It was set up by the aforementioned corporation, along with regional universities, foundations, and with the help of The Institute for Global Ethics. The Heartland has the stated goal of “shifting the focus from school to education, and shifting the responsibility from school to community.”

I learned that in recent years she has conducted 24 Community Ethics seminars. It is a Character Education program which emphasizes shared community values. [size=92]{So far this sounds more like Applied Ethics than like an Ethical Theory discussion. Let us though examine what her organization means by “Shared Community Values.”}[/size]

[b]The values which emerged (as those upon which there is a global-wide consensus that this is what “ethics” is about) are these:

Honesty, Respect, Responsibility, Compassion, Self-control, Commitment, Fairness, Moral Courage, and Cooperation.[/b]

If Ethics means anything it is a concern with these values.

[Incidentally, centering in on values avoids all the unnecessary difficulties that arise when “action” is made the central focus. For that results in grappling with such pseudo-issues as “Is a lie wrong because of the results that may ensue, or because it is a lie - and lies are always forbidden?” To phrase it another way: “Is a lie permissible when it leads to some good outcome (as a Consequentialist would argue), or is it forbidden just because the act is a lie?” (and Deontology explains why a lie is always wrong since it can’t be universalized without ending all civilization.)

Philosophers have been known to dispute these matters, while slipping easily among usage of the terms “consequence,” “act,” “action,” and “activity,” without defining any of these words, or bothering to differentiate them.]

:bulb: :arrow_right: It is logical, for theoretic convenience, to divide Ethics into two branches: Individual Ethics and Social Ethics. Then the question arises, How classify the shared community values? In what branch do each of them belong?

It seems to me that it is sensible to regard Honesty, Compassion, Fairness and Cooperation as concerns where others are involved, and thus I would put them in the Social Ethics department of Ethical Theory.

Furthermore, Commitment and Self-control are best classified as belonging to Individual Ethics as topics for analysis and explication.

There are however values that overlap both fields. Here I would say belong: Respect, Responsibility, and Moral Courage {and maybe even Honesty, since we can lie to ourselves.} An individual can have Self-Respect and can respect others. There is Responsibility assumed by the person as part of a commitment to be a moral individual of good character who wants to live ethically; and there definitely is also Social Responsibility (which includes a quest for social justice, and an extension of human rights (to gays, women, those of dark complexion, those of ‘foreign’ national origin, or who hold ‘strange’ religious ideas, etc.)

Moral Courage, when it takes the form of an individual being a whistle-blower who unearths and reveals corruption in an institution, in government, or in a corporation or business falls into the intersection of Individual and Social Ethics. It is inter-departmental - interdisciplinary, so to speak.
For most of these values I devote a chapter of its own -showing how they fit into the big picture, and clarifying them - in my essay, Living Successfully, a link to which is here: myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/HOW%20 … SFULLY.pdf

Your reviews of this approach to Ethical Theory is welcomed.
Did you learn anything of value by perusing the manuscript?
Can you suggest any improvements when the contents of this paper is combined with the material in the earlier effort, BASIC ETHICS: A systematic approach myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf

I wrote the latter booklet three years ago; and the former this year (2017.) The latter offers a more-logical presentation, as it proceeds from Meta-philosophy to philosophy; and from Moral Philosophy to Ethics as a science; from pure Theory to Applied Ethics - that is, to policy questions and to practical implications of the axioms and theorems.

Many critics say a Science of Ethics is impossible, but they fail to define their terms nor do they attempt to understand where the scientific Ethicists are coming from: how they employ their terminology, what motivates them.

Your views?

This thread is about the Community Values seminars. They are devised to arrive at a consensus as to what are the values of a specific community; a cross-section of that community {village, town, municipality} are invited to the seminar which then functions much like a Focus Group, or a consensus-building Warren Avis group. They are experiments in how to deepen one’s awareness of, and commitment to, ethical values. :sunglasses:

These character education seminars that were held under the guidance of The Institute for Global Ethics. This organization found that when people around the world were asked, in their native tongue, what “Ethics” meant to them? they, time and again, replied by mentioning some of those values listed in the first post above.

In the seminars, those assembled would discuss these concepts and specify and clarify what each of the values meant to them personally. It seems to be a way of teaching ethics to adults. I brought it to your attention for your evaluation and comments. Do you have another, or a better, method to offer?

Your comments are most welcome :exclamation:

.
The current and near future social ethics methodology;
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg_pb-Mxisk[/youtube]

Who needs a seminar when children can be programmed from infancy?

James writes:

“Who needs a seminar when children can be programmed from infancy?”

Do you believe that if children learn (or as you say, “are programmed”) those values - including Responsibility, Honesty, and Cooperation - mentioned in the original post, that this is “bad.”?

If I may answer. :slight_smile:

The so-called "values“ can be used/misused by almost everyone. So, for example, responsibility, honesty, cooperation can be misused by, for example, leftists, centrists, rightists. Think of the current leftist dictatorship of "political correctness“ which requires from the children to think and say, for example, that "non-whites are good“ and or even because "whites are evil“, that it is everyone’s "responsibility“ and "honesty“ to think and say this over and over again, also to do this in "cooperation“ over and over again.

Current leftist dictatorship? In the US? Right wingers control all 3 branches of government here currently.

These days, ruling or having the most power has not very much to do with the formal government, for example the public government of a state or a nation. And I was not talking about such a public government. I was talking about a dictatorship of a ruling system. The rulers of this ruling system do not rule in a public way, but in a private and secret way. They are more like drug dealers of a global extent than like politicians of a national extent.

[tab]

[/tab]
So, Trump, for instance, is by far not the most powerful man in the world.

Additionally: I would like to know who those “right wingers” really are that you are talking about. It is possibly very questionable whether they are real “right wingers” or not. But anyway: Fact is that they are not the real rulers.

Yes, everything can be misused.

And everything is questionable.

Now can we get back to the topic of this thread?!

My position on the topic question is: Yes, there can be shared community values. Yes, the values listed, such as cooperativeness on shared worthwhile goals, are qualities that a person of good character would have.
Ethics is definitely concerned with these values mentioned; they are highly relevant to Ethics. :sunglasses: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

Does anyone here agree?
Would such adult-education seminars help make the world a better place?

What say you?

Yes I agree.

It is quite obvious the majority do share the minimal value ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ with differences on the fringe regarding exceptions to the rule.

What is progressive is humanity [represented by all recognized Nations] has now reached the stage [contrast 200 years ago] of sharing the same common value as least legally, i.e. “Slavery is a Crime”.

Humans are born with an inherent drive for greater improvement on morality and its values, so in time, humans will progress to sharing more moral values. What we need is to expedite the progress with reliance from philosophy proper.

You didn’t specify, “concerning what”; honesty concerning what, responsibility concerning what, cooperation concerning what?

Have you ever heard the expression, "If it can go wrong, it will go wrong"?

If it can be used for bad, it WILL be used for bad. Man has proven that over and over and over.

“Honesty concerning how evil Islam is. Responsibility concerning working against Islam. Cooperation concerning the fight against Islam.” Or China. Or Korea, or the Evil Republicans.

How is infant programming NOT going to be used for political, power mongering? Almost no one actually cares about ethics. What they care about is the fight for the “good” which is inevitably defined as the fight against the “bad”. That is the reality. And due to the nature of social interaction, the “bad” is anyone not being “honest”, being “responsible”, or not “cooperating” in the fight to crush those bad people who are not doing those things. That is exactly what you have been promoting since you first came here whether you know it or not.

This happens because if you cause them to believe what you say, they will choose to fight for it (exactly what you have been attempting to get people to do). And to fight for one thing, is to fight against another. But people are not very discerning or precise (including yourself). They must have very clear understanding of precisely WHO the enemy is. They believe in the power of people and thus the only true enemy must be people. And in order to give them a clear sense of who the enemy is, an enemy must be kept in sight, even if one has to be created. And that involves insidious games of deceit, duplicity, and secret surveillance and judgment - the “Darkness”.

Exactly define precisely what is good and what is evil such that there is no ambiguity and there can be no mistake, and then you can accomplish some good. Of course the problem is that you cannot do that.

What actually determines good and evil is the manner in which it is sought. Manners makes the Man

Only if you manage to influence and overcome the current trend of far, far more advanced and influential people persuading the population in other directions, otherwise your efforts will be just a little more noise used to their advantage.

Are you saying that misusing things and humans has not to do with the topic of this thread? Are you saying that questionability of the distribution of power, political positions and how all that is “legalized” has not to do with the topic of this thread?

You are wrong!

I agree completely, but for me if an approach to these virtues is based on this…

…then my take, to the question…

…is that it’s difficult to see how it’s possible to build the virtues noted when any consensus on the proper virtues underpinning an ethical system arrived at in a meeting are potentially null the moment everyone walks out the door. It seems to me the notion of holding ethics meetings–a good idea in itself–if based on a perceived deterioration of societal ethical/moral values and behaviors, can never be repaired if the fix is to serve up more of what plays a big role in causing the problem in the first place. Just my two cents.

It seems that Thinkdr is an “ethical Prismatic” and that Prismatic is a “religious Thinkdr”. Their “progress” is regress. At least, what they want to be realized is dangerous. It is similar to what certain humans have already experienced. Look at the history of communism. Communists are always saying that they want to “make the world a better place” and that therefore “adult-education seminars” and many similar things are needed (also the belief in the false conclusion “God is impossible”), thus: they want even more dictatorship.

Currently, liberalists and communists are in the same globalistic boat called “humanitarianism” - not knowing what “humanitarianism” means, what “humanity” means, what “human” means. They are confusing “good” and “bad” (“evil”), “true” and “false” (“wrong”), “objective” and “subjective”, “ideal” and “real”, “possible” and “impossible”, “progressive” and “regressive”.

From your post it is very obvious the infection of the "zombie parasite’ is very critical and serious that is resulting in your very strong resistance to improvement and change.

Your ‘Their “progress” is regress’ is very intellectually stupid.
What I had introduced is all humans has an inherent drive for higher morality and ethics and this is proven in the progress with the Laws on killing and slavery.
It is obvious such views do not has any direct relation with communism, the regressive left and all the vitriols you are throwing at me.

What is real is your illusory belief ‘God is real and possible’ makes you [& all theists] complicit with all the terrible terrors, violence and all other evils committed by a percentile of theists who are evil prone and inspired by immutable evil laden verses from the same illusory God you believe. Btw, the Abrahamic God [4+ billion believers] is the worst and vile dictator besides whatever good it has.

So, Prismatic 567, you have again proven that you have proven nothing.

Your emotional response makes it clear that I have nailed it: You are regressive. And you use words that mask this fact.

You use one of the nihilistic “programs” in order to try a transvaluation of values, and the result is always: failure.

We know from all communistic experiments how regressive communism is. I am not throwing this against you, it is not necessary, because you yourself are doing that for me.

So, thank you for your stupidity. :smiley:

Frankly, I am posting my views and it is you who is feeling the threat [against your groundless belief] and responding in a typical offensive manner. I was responding to Thinkdr and not you but you busybody yourself and intruded to condemn.
If your posts has any thing substantive to counter my arguments I will definitely take note for intellectual and philosophical sake.

So, Prismatic, you do not read your own posts. But that does not help you either.

You have no arguments. You have never had any argument.

Pseudo-arguments, wrong conclusions, insubstantiality, misuse of great philosophers and other stupid swindels - it has always been the same with you. You are failing on the most fundamental level. (See all your threads.)

I have proven you wrong. And many other ILP members have proven you wrong.

Also, one of your problems is that you are not capable of knowing that the term “God is a possibility” is not the term “God is real”. You do not even understand the simplest statements. We were talking about possibilities and impossibilities in your God thread (but obviously, you do not even know this) and not about realitiy as such. So, you do not know the distiction between reality and ideality.

No wonder that you are not capable of understanding Kant who was a philosopher of two eras: (1) the era of the German Enlightenment and (2) the era of the German Idealism.

And by the way: You were responding to me - even two times (see above).

I think this is a commonly mistaken view of ethical reality. The “higher drive for morality” is more accurately a “cumulative effect” or moral beacon impressed as a collective “societal compass”. I.e., we know intuitively [and thus collectively] that to seek truth and good trumps the pursuit of falsehood and evil. But this doesn’t mean all humans have this inherent drive. Obviously very many do not. The alleged seeking of “higher morality and ethics” might only be a front designed more to generate freedoms from certain moral and ethical constraints than to actually pursue moral truth for its own sake. And this of course renders the whole claim to push for a ‘universal morality for all’ into a “moral farce” intent in establishing an agenda.

Do ALL humans has an inherent potential for a sexual drive DNA? a hunger drive?
I don’t believe you will argue against this inherent ‘potential.’
The point is this potential is not fully activated in all humans, some with an inactive dormant sexual drive are asexual and there are various forms of sexuality.

Whilst the sexual, hunger, security, [Maslow’s basic needs] are instinctual, the drive for morality is a later development in terms of evolution [cumulative through generations] but the drive for morality is nevertheless inherent and embedded via the DNA. One clue is the presence of mirror neurons in the higher primates and humans.

Research on babies of less than one year old [to discount ‘nurture’] has demonstrated babies has an inherent inborn drive and propensity for morality.

Because this potential drive for morality is a later development embedded in the higher cortical regions of the brain, it is easily suppressed by inherent and nurturing evil elements as the child grows up. At present, this inherent drive for greater morality is suppressed within the brain of the majority.

But this inherent potential drive for morality is continually driving humans towards greater degree of morality within humanity, like the beautiful lotus flower that is pushing through mud, dirt and muck to bloom. Note the various examples of morality [banning of slavery] I have given to demonstrate this.

It is the understanding of the full mechanisms of the system and processes supporting morality that we are able to continually improve it and accelerating this knowledge [within the brain] will expedite the processes and the results of good.

I believe yours is a mistaken and deliberately blinded view not to recognize and the understand the inherent potential morality drive within all humans. Such a blinded view do not provide any room for one to release this potential where it is not activated or suppressed by nurture.

I can understand your apprehension and reservation that SOME people will invent their own standard of morality and pursue that to the detriments of humanity. Btw, this has already happened with the Abrahamic religions with their immutable moral laws from a God which is illusory an impossibility.
What I am proposing is humanity must learn the above lessons from the rigid Abrahamic morality, evil secular ideologies, etc. so as to establish a foolproof and abuse-proof Framework and System of Morality and System in the future based on accelerated multiple intelligences.

So there is a potential morality drive that is inherent within ALL humans which can be active or dormant in various people. What is critical is humanity must recognize and understand the processes involved within this inherent potential and activate it in as many people as possible. This potential give humanity the assurance that ‘good’ will always prevail over ‘evil’.

Being that sharing doesn’t exist in our stratified societies I would say no.

The concept of societal sharing has been dead for thousands of years. All values are imposed and strictly enforced by force. There are only ultimatums and the illusion of social contracts.