Important Announcement about a new paper on ethics

If you encounter a Moslem, treat him or her as an individual, not as a member of a group that you may have a bias against. Be, yourself, a shining example of the principles indicated in the essay, and in its linked references. Greet the person with a wish for peace: say “Salam alaykim.” Then begin a discussion by bringing up the weather, or the person’s health.

Then find a segue to one of the principles mentioned in those writings, and start teaching it to your new friend. Use friendly persuasion. Study up on the techniques of persuasion you will find on the internet. Some very good ones are offered there.

Eventually gain agreement on some common value. Use that to transition to teaching that vengeance, getting revenge, is self-defeating and counter-productive. Teach him or her the high value gained in nonviolent direct action as a way of combating injustice. Ask forgiveness for all the evil done to his people by people from your country. Ask him if he is ready to abandon violence as you have. Visit him at home. Tell him you’ve thrown away your gun! Invite him to do likewise.

After you have gone through these steps, let us know how it worked out.
At least you will have added one more individual to your network.

Greetings, Serendipper

Yes, there is a recipe for being easygoing, for having peace-of-mind and heart. You will find it in that 2-page chapter entitled Achieving Emotional Peace, in M.C. Katz - HOW TO LIVE SUCCESSFULLY, an Amazon Kindle publication (2017). amazon.com/LIVING-SUCCESSFU … B01NBKS42C - cf. pp 83-84
The Ethics mistake, in the above story presented in your recent post, is when the one who was stood-up got uptight, if he did. And becoming judgmental.

If you had serenity, you would - just out of curiosity - casually ask that no-show: What happened? How come you weren’t there?? (with a tone of voice making no assumptions as to his motive for absence.)
If the excuse given makes no sense, or is stupid, just casually ask: Do you think that not showing-up for an appointment we made is inconsiderate?

If you don’t like the answer you get, just don’t hang out with that jerk any more. You can continue to be courteous and well-mannered because that is the kind of person you are. You can continue to show that fellow respect, by holding the door open for him to go out first, etc. Don’t abandon your high principles just because of his poor conduct.

In my life, if someone “through garbage at me” I would turn, face them, and say “Thank you.” They would then be stunned with shock. …would never repeat the ethically-questionable action. A wise rabbi once counseled, “Love your enemy.” It is still true. It still works. Love drives out fear. When someone attempts to abuse you, you will show no fear. Have nothing against any mother’s son or daughter. Whatever the question, love is the answer.

Technically, for classroom purposes, this is known as Intrinsic valuation. [I-Value for short.] Study up on it, in the works of the philosophical genius, Robert S. Hartman. He wrote the magnum opus, The Structure of Value.

:smiley:

Well obviously death, coma, technological malfunction are acceptable excuses, but what I find often given are: “the kids called and I had to change plans” or “we decided to go for burgers first” or “my friends called and I decided to hang with them instead.” All beg the question of: why didn’t you let me know? The answer is: Well I didn’t think of it or I didn’t think it was a big deal. Never ever have I gotten the excuse of a car accident or some life-threatening situation where consideration couldn’t be afforded for justifiable reasons. No, it’s always lack of consideration: “I just didn’t think of you or think you were worth bothering with.”

And due to technological progress, blowing people off has become like a bodily function. Inconsideration is being increasingly ingrained in our culture simply because people are so abundant on social media that each individual’s worth is negligible. If one guy out of 700 pitches a fit, then ignore him and focus on the easy-going ones who don’t expect much, which leaves integrity antiquated and selects for the ones who don’t hold themselves to any special standard.

But what if it’s everyone? Finding someone with integrity is like a diamond in the rough. I’ve gotten to the point that I’d rather throw things in the garbage than sell on craigslist because I can’t handle one more person breaking their word to me. “I’ll be there tomorrow at 6 to buy the widget you’re selling” and I take time out of my schedule to be available at 6 only to find they don’t show or call to let me know that they’ve changed their mind.

I’ve even gone as far as requiring folks to call me back in a few days just to be sure they really want the item before we make appointments. They have to demonstrate desire and ability to follow through before I’ll consider them worthy of my making time for them, and I hate being like that because it’s presumption of guilt, so it’s easier to just not sell or have any dealings with the public.

I could see that but I think that is a little-bit different. If someone hates me, then they are taking me into consideration so I DO matter, but when someone is inconsiderate, then it’s as if I’m inconsequential and nonexistent which is greater insult.

“Love your enemy” has many meanings, not just showering them with kindness as a means of dumping coals on their head. Loving enemies can mean the necessity of having people who disagree with you because otherwise there would be nothing to talk about, so you have to treasure your enemies in order for yourself to manifest. I need you to take the opposite position of mine in order that I know what I think.

Thanks for the tip, but I’m not very good at that, unfortunately :frowning: I’d rather you just give me the answer :smiley:

I came upon these thought-provoking quotes. They could serve as a supplement to the teachings found in the document to which a link is offered here:
THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018)
myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT … %20all.pdf

[b]

[/b]

Comments?
Discussion?

What does it mean to be good without doing good things?
It seems logically impossible to “be good first”.

Psychopaths are real and they are conscious.

What does it mean to be good without doing good things?
It seems logically impossible to “be good first”.

On the contrary, phyllo.

The priority is first to devote yourself to being moral, ethical - to being a decent person who intends to be nice - to make that commitment, and thus set up a personal obligatory norm for yourself; and then live it. Put it into action by your subsequent conduct.

See the first paragraph at the top of page 22 here:
THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018)
myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT … %20all.pdf -
for a deeper understanding of the order of priorities.

Employing the three basic value dimensions which Dr. Robert S. Hartman discovered as existing in the discourse and evaluations made by human beings, we note:

Systemic: The formal norms o of a symbolic-logic of Entailments - which eventually may prove to be relevant to the life of moral sense [moral health.]

Extrinsic: Facultative norms: An interpretation of those arid, pure Logic sentences, applying them to human relations and to moral concerns.
E.g., “Decent people are considerate of others; and they help others to rise.”

Intrinsic: Obligative norms. For example: “I want to be a decent individual who will be considerate, help others to rise, and in general, create - rather than destroy - value in my encounters with others!!!” And I intend to be so …with my head, hands, and heart. :exclamation:, with all the enthusiasm, inspiration, and passion I can muster :exclamation: :exclamation: I intend to create value. "

p.s. You may have noticed from time to time trolls operating on this site. Trolls destroy value.

Psychopaths are NOT conscious in the sense meant in that quotation.

To comprehend the usage of the concept “conscious” in that context, see the writings of Gabriel D. Roberts, especially on the topic of “enlightenment.”

When one is conscious in the sense Gabriel means it, one has a heightened, intense empathy for others along with deep humility. Psychopaths lack empathy.

This is probably due to some brain damage. With very few exceptions we are probably all handicapped in some way; so this is not a moral judgment. Many adult psychopaths are nonviolent, and are aware of their handicap. Some even go to lengths to compensate for it.

I realize the word ‘conscious’ is being redefined … essentially making it synonymous with ‘good’. That’s one thing I object to.

Yes and it amounts to an impossible perfection as demonstrated by this statement : “When you are conscious, you cannot help yourself but do good and be good only.”

Does that not seem like an absurd infallibility?

Even Jesus said that “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God”. (That includes Jesus himself.)

Nobody is perfect and becoming ‘conscious’ is not going to make a person perfect.

There is never a point in life when one is not doing anything so there is never a blank slate starting point.

You can decide at some point “to do good”. What would it mean to decide “I am good”?

You are evaluated by others based on what you do, so simply saying “I am good” is not going to get any response from them without some sort of actions.

A self evaluation of “I am good” is simply a thought without any substance. Your actions are the evidence of your goodness, for yourself as well as others.
And simply making the commitment does not guarantee that your actions will be good … you may be mistaken about what is good.

It is true that “our actions speak louder than words,” and that we set an example by our conduct, an example that someone who is conscious {aware of how to tell the good from the bad} wants others to follow when it is a good example.

The commitment an ethical individual makes is to create value. This includes being nice to others, helping others to rise, being deferential (but not excessively so), being considerate, generous, empathic, kind, being of service, being authentic, sincere, inclusive, responsible, etc.

See the logical explanation for this in the first link below in the signature.

Questions, comments, discussion?

How is that different from just saying : “To be good is to be able to tell the good from the bad and to know the correct order of priorities”

You’re just substituting another word for the word ‘good’ without adding anything new.

The problem is still the same … knowing what “creates value” and what removes value. If you don’t know or are mistaken about what is ‘good’ then you probably don’t know or are mistaken about what “creates value”.

The concept of “creating value” is more abstract and removed from what drives a human being than the concept of ‘good’. If one is to get a working ethics, then it seems to me, that one has to get closer to a human being. It has to feel real.

Sounds like the choice of a rich person, someone who does not have to do anything now. Since most of us are doing already, mightn’t one pursue goodness through acts already. I mean, if that is what one wanted to do. Since people often have completely opposed ideas of the good, there are problems either way, it just seemd an oddly detached life one would have to traing themselves in being, then later in doing.

[b]

[/b]
[/quote]
I am wary of people who tell me I should be egoless. I notice they tend to take up a lot of space and are silently judgmental.

I don’t think this holds for psychopaths.

Hitler made a commitment to be good.

Or there is a problem with the laws.

How selfish are you supposed to be? Allowed to be?

Obviously, you’re doing things for yourself - you’re not living entirely for other people.

yes, and further, what I would tend to call a good person is someone who it is great when they are selfish. Decided not to listen to their family and pursued an odd career they loved. And this selfish love led to them doing what they cared about which ending up helping people and also kept them from being a bitter commuter to a prestigious job they did not want to have. Too much ego, being selfish - thes kinds of criticisms stifle precisely the people I wish felt free to do what they want and have no affect on the people I wish it would.

What is your evidence for making this claim?

And how do you define “good”? Do you mean it here in the Ethical sense of the word, as defined by Dr. R. S. Hartman in his magnum opus, THE STRUCTURE OF VALUE.
:question:

[See the entry “Science of Value” in Wikipedia…]

This exhibits the Straw Man Fallacy. I never said anything about “I am good.” In fact, I recommended having humility, when it comes to being morally good.

You quoted this :

and this:

The implications seem pretty clear… one decides to “be good first” and therefore one is good without having done any good thing.

Or one decides “I am conscious” which is equivalent to “I am good”.