Important Announcement about a new paper on ethics

: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”.

What is your evidence for the claim that committment to the good leads to what you think it does? In any case, I don’t think that anyone doubts that Hitler thought it was good to raise and keep pure Germany and the Aryan race. All the experts I’ve read seem to agree on this and it fits, for me, with my sense of his behavior and how people act in general. Unfortunately people have different ideas about what the Good is. He committed to this with great passion, at the repeated risk of his own life, and I have little doubt he would have been put to death after the war and he likely knew that but pushed on fanatically.

I am pressing on specific points in your thesis because to me it seems this kind of ethical approach has been tried again and again in history with the limited success it has had, but it is presented here as ‘now there is a way for all of us to get along’ as if something new is being presented. It boils down to a call for the golden rule coupled with judgments of selfishness. We’ve heard this over the centuries in many forms. It is not new and I see nothing it this version of it that will be more catchy then older versions.

This is not a reason NOT to pursue convincing people to care more for others. But you present it, and have for years, as if it is some kind of new, original panacea. But it clearly is not. If you do not have the funcamental understandings of human nature and why this idea does not catch on, how can you present the ideas in a new way so that it will?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193887#p2698772
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193887#p2698838

I enjoyed the paper overall, but found it too full of cliché and fairly empty of scientific documentation. I’d prefer a decent inclusion of evolutionary ethics in any paper that attempts to explain what people are like and what they do. The big question that embraces religious, scientific and philosophical theories of human behavior is WHY? One could ask==
1, Did our evolutionary development into self consciousness, causing a distinction between self and other, contribute to our thoughts on how others should be treated?
2. Is altruism an adaptation that benefits human survival?