In the new paradigm for Ethics one special assumption is made. It asks you to assume that human life is valuable.
Assume that human life is valuable. Then that is why murder is wrong. And that is why slavery, exploitation, manipulation, defrauding, deception, cheating and conning are wrong: they do harm to human beings. They desecrate value instead of enhancing value. They thus are to be avoided.
As we discuss human relations, human development, and ethics, let us make one more assumption: ethical individuals want to make things morally better. This suggests an imperative: Make things better!
The above two assumptions are the axioms for Ethics – just as transformations of energy are axioms for Physics. It is imperative to regard each conscious individual’s life as highly valuable and to make things better. Ethics teaches us to create value in our human interactions.
Hence something else to be avoided is having a double standard, one for yourself and another for others. Also it is wrong to use any means, take any steps, to get to your end-in-view – even if those means are immoral.
To be moral is to live by adherence to moral principles, and over time to be adding more of them to those that you live by. In this new paradigm for Ethics the concept “morality” implies moral development; you are to be making yourself better.
And transparency is a high value in this system for ethics. Have nothing to hide! Be transparent. A person of good character would want that for his government too. The barest minimum of government data is to be stamped “confidential.” Aim to maximize transparency!!! That is true Democracy.
To get further details about the system being proposed for consideration, feel free to consult the essays and papers linked to below.
Comments? Questions? Bright ideas?
Do the ends justify the means?
Sometimes they do.
If you are tired, that could provide a good reason for lying down in bed.
If your land has been invaded and occupied, you have good reasons for making the life of the occupying soldiers uncomfortable; but no amount of rationalization “justifies” shooting to kill. …say, as a member of the Irish Republican Army ready to commit violence on a British soldier. Instead, use nonviolent means to drive out the occupying forces. Keep in mind the Principle that conscious human life is highly valuable
Liberty, for example, is a noble end …a moral end. Employ only moral means to attain it. Else you will not get it – or if you do seem to get it, it won’t be worth it. For in such case, immorality will become the state of affairs, the new cultural standard.
So killing is verboten. What about lying to a large population? And let me categorize lying as “wittingly deceiving or spreading deception” and “unwittingly deceiving or spreading deception”, both in regards merely to large populations (else the minutia could get overwhelming).
Please briefly enumerate for us in what situations it is ethical to lie to a large population in accord with your ethics theory (perhaps one paragraph). And if you could even more briefly explain why each of those situations are ethically sanctioned but not others.
I have a third related question but I’ll hold.
Murder to any degree is ill-advised; it is not likely that you would destroy what you value as a treasure, and according to the very definition of the ethical perspective, a conscious individual is to be regarded as a treasure …as uncountably-valuable.
A love for, and commitment to, the truth is a feature of a good character. Thus, deception, which violates truth-telling, is immoral. It matters not whether it is done to one or to many. I thought I had already made that plain. {I gave two exceptions, a magician’s patter, as s/he entertains to amuse, and I said lying to save a life may be permissible. Now I will add a third exception: bluffing, as in a game, like poker, is also permissible. One is not necessarily immoral if one does that.}
Those who deny the climate crisis are lying to themselves unfortunately for human-kind. Take a look at Glacier National Park in Northwest Montana, for example: when it was founded it had over 100 glaciers. Today it has about 20. Where did those glaciers go? How did they disappear? Does the “Greenhouse Effect” due to man’s discharge of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere have anything to do with it? You bet it does! The crisis is man-made. If we continue to attack Mother Nature she will have her say.
Don’t these severe hurricanes, such as in Long Island and in Puerto Rico, have a cost? …A rather high cost. And don’t run-away forest fires burn down some very-expensive homes? Is leveling the Amazon jungle a good idea …considering that those trees absorb CO2 and breathe out Oxygen. And isn’t all this record-breaking unprecedented flooding costly?
Does the cost exceed the benefit? 
Shouldn’t we have policies now that lessen the amount of Carbon we spew into the atmosphere …policies such as a carbon tax; or such as setting up lots of recharging stations everywhere to encourage people to buy inexpensive electric cars and/or other electric vehicles?
Answer for yourself these questions, folks…
Despite prior posts, the climate hoax was not my purpose or focus concerning this question, although easily related. I am more focused at the moment on the extreme degree of political lies that are not merely common, but accepted as the norm with little attention or concern.
And I asked if you could distinguish for us the “witting lie” morality from the “unwitting lie” morality.
You have expressed that except for entertainment purposes, ALL lying is immoral. But does that include unintentional lies where someone just didn’t do enough research or investigation but had no intent to deceive? Perhaps he didn’t have the facilities required to do sufficient research. And also with those who merely pass along false rumors with little or no knowledge of their validity? What is the ethical position they hold within your theory? And is it always just black and white, or are there degrees of immorality or unethical behavior?
[1] There are some encouraging signs of hope:
The work of 16-year-old Greta Thunberg at the United Nations; she effectively shamed the delegates . Also see: bu.edu/articles/2019/youth-c … _today&utm
[2] I did not express that. The science of Ethics does not make absolute statements; its every proposition is tentative, indexed, and dated. I believe Ethics is nearly ready to be ushered into a science. It has its experimental phase known as Moral Psychology. It has a frame-of-reference which almost could be expressed in Symbolic Logic. It will, with a little more sharpening up by those who collaborate on the project be rather exact.
As I define “lying” it is intentional. Hence I don’t know what ‘unintentional lying’ means. One may unwittingly convey falsehoods - such as those who call the the Climate Crisis, “a hoax.” This shows a lack of awareness about the threat to our habitat; or maybe it shows a conscience that is asleep. A lack of awareness must be forgiven.
Ignorance abounds. [size=58]{If the shoe doesn’t fit, please don’t wear it.!!}[/size]
If a conscience is sleeping, wake it up!
The default condition of the human species is goodness. Dr. Paul Bloom’s research with babies - brought in to the Yale TV studio by their mothers - confirms that we are, unless our upbringing and/or our culture ruins us, with very few exceptions, ethical from birth.
[3] This shows a lack of comprehension of material read in the References offered below. Time and again the point was made in the new system of Ethics that black-or-white thinking is a disvalue, worth very, very little, a mere fraction of value close to zero, because life is full of shades of grey and also contains many, many colors.
Time and again therein I stress that morality, moral value, is a matter of degree.
See for yourself.
I am well aware of dear Greta’s performance and the extremely unethical practice of using children for propaganda and political gains. I’m sure far more so than you. [size=70]I wonder if they will give her an Oscar.[/size]
And yet you stated:
That seems pretty absolute to me.
Or quite the reverse.
Listen, I’m not here to catch you at your flaws nor to expose your climate hoax ignorance. I dropped the subject at your first outburst. I suggest you stop bringing it up.
So it is not 'immoral" to convey lies or create falsehoods unintentionally. That is all I had asked.
And if hysteria is awakened, put it to sleep.
That is a very flawed study, but I’m sure merely something else we disagree about.
That’s fine but then you shouldn’t be saying the word “immoral”. You should be saying “murder is less moral”. Moral and immoral are opposite poles, opposite extremes, not suited for relativist measures.
Let’s skip over our disagreements and get to my point if that’s alright.
In politics, especially in your country, political lies are always being justified by the excuse, “it’s okay because it furthers our good cause.” I would like to know where you stand on that particular type of excuse. How much of an immorality is it? There seems to be a serious conundrum no matter which position you take concerning it unless you simply abandon all ethics.
Let me give you an example.
A congressman decides that your President must be impeached for the good of the world. So he lies about the President. The CIA helps to orchestrate events (their expertise) so as to make the congressman’s lie seem quite truthful - on the surface. Television networks, corporations only interested in money and ratings, promote the deception not for the good of the world, but merely for profit. Shortly the vast majority of the population believe the lie because they don’t have time to go investigate the details.
Now if you were at all aware of the political news in Washington DC, you would have a very good idea of the actual people that I have mentioned. But you don’t give me the impression that you actually have any idea at all of the political dynamics of your country except for the most superficial gossip, so perhaps this example fits your real situation.
But never mind the reality of the scenario and please give us an ethics revue of that TYPE of scenario. Which of the generic players mentioned hold what degree of ethical behavior under which circumstances?
excuse me for a moment, but i take issue with the following statement.
that second one doesn’t feel right to me.
if there isn’t already, there should be a subtle difference between lying and not telling the truth… so that all those who are lying are not telling the truth, but not all those not telling the truth are lying. so say bob says to george ‘phil is at the pool now waiting for us’, after being told by george that he’d be leaving for the pool and would arrive there in ten minutes. bob was told this twenty minutes ago. now george isn’t at the pool yet - he got held up in traffic - so what bob said to george wasn’t the truth… but was it a lie?
to lie one must meet two requirements first; they must know the truth, and also willingly withhold it. in bob’s case, while what he said wasn’t true, he had no true knowledge of phil’s whereabouts, and therefore couldn’t have purposely withheld such information.
thoughts, questions, comments?
And, with ethics, it gets all the more problematic.
If Bob tells George that Jane had an abortion because she scheduled an appointment for one at the Planned Parenthood clinic that morning, it’s a lie if Jane shows up the next day still pregnant because she changed her mind.
Bob simply wasn’t aware of that fact.
But what happens when the discussion shifts to the morality of abortion. George tells Jane that she did the right thing because abortion is immoral. Jane tells George that abortion is not immoral, she simply changed her mind about this pregnancy.
So, which one of them is not telling the truth and/or lying?
biggs i already told you i’m a non-cognitivist and i believe descriptive ethical statements are not truth-apt, so i can offer you no guidance pertaining to your abortion. if you feel you want to get an abortion, i say get 'er done.
Greetings, obsrvr524
Thank you for some good questions!
obsrvr524 wrote:
No, it is not okay.
I agree with Rosalind Hursthouse who writes, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Strive to be an honest person if you aim to grow in morality. Then, at the slightest hint of dishonesty in someone you will be 'turned off."
For example, the second that Donald Trump says, “I care about corruption” you would know that something is wrong there. He might add “…in Ukraine.” but then you may think: why not in the United States also. Isn’t it a principle? Do you have any principles? It appears you have no shame
In my theory of Ethics, the Consistency Principle tells us to not have a double standard, one for ourselves, and another for others.
The Principle of Inclusivity says: Extend your ethical radius so that it sweeps in more individuals into your ‘in-group.’ Be cosmopolitan, at least. Identify with the furthest scope you can imagine – even the universe.
Yes, you are right: the system is suggesting that you kill as few people as possible.
It does not make absolute statements. They are all tentative and subject to revision …just as newtonian physics later became a special case within einsteinian physics.
p.s. When, in a previous post I wrote: “Ignorance abounds” I was including myself in that. I have lots to learn.
BTW, earlier you were asking for clarification with regard to credits. I studied under a polymath and philosophical genius named Robert S. Hartman. Wade Harvey, my web-host, studied under John Davis, (Chairman of the Philosophy Department at the Univ. of Tennessee/Knoxville) who studied under Dr. Hartman. The latter proposed that Ethics is what results when Intrinsic Value is applied to an individual, or a group of them.
He conceived of the Dimensions of Value - which you can read more about in Wiki under the caption: Science of Value. You can also find there a biography of him which I entered. He was my teacher and mentor. I met him when he was a Visiting Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He gets the credit for Formal Axiology. He is not responsible for the Unified Theory of Ethics. That’s my inspiration, my creation; see the name on the title page (of the selections referenced below.)
Perhaps I am just too simple minded but I feel like you sidestepped my question:
In this example we have three parties.
- a congressman who knowingly creates a lie because he believes he is saving the world.
- a CIA that orchestrates events so as to help promote the lie not caring if it is a lie.
- a news media willing to spread the lie without investigating the truth because it is sensational.
Which of each of those are being unethical and to what degree?
I have issues with that statement.
Second example:
Someone accuses you of murder because he believes it. He tells his neighbors. One of his neighbors is a reporter for a TV news media. The news reporter announces the accusation to the world but includes the phrase, “we have yet to verify this yet but according to my sources…”
The neighbor made an accusation based on his unverified suspicion. He didn’t know the truth. The reporter knew that the story was not verified and stated as much.
Both people, according to you, have not lied. When your boss asks you if the reporter lied, you have to say, “no”. He also asks if the reporter’s source lied. Again, you have to say “no”. Your boss then gets an important phone call and you have to leave the room for the rest of the day. During the evening, your boss discusses the issue with corporate. Corporate receives the message that the accusation is true by your own admission. Guess what happens before you get to even find a lawyer.
First example:
With respect to items ((1), (2), and (3) above, I would need much more detail before I could analyze it. Also I would need to know exactly how you define the word “lie.” News media don’t write, individuals write. The CIA does not orchestrate, individuals orchestrate - and they are to be held responsible.
Second example:
When the fellow tells his neighbors that you committed murder, it is their responsibility to be skeptical of what they heard, rather than gullibly accepting it as so.
When the reporter submits the story, Ethics applied to journalism directs that he NOT mention the name of the accused - even after the story receives some confirmation - because Articles Five and Six of our Constitution guarantee that we are to be presumed “innocent” until proven “guilty.”
Unfortunately today, in the U.S. Criminal Courts one is presumed guilty. The judge has full power to dismiss the case if s/he sees fit or to impose some penalty on the defendant accused.
NB: The one who accuses another of murder, if he knew his Ethics, and lived it, would make sure of his facts before making accusations
He would make a habit of creating positive value when interacting or communicating with other persons, hence he would be unlikely to toss out accusations at all. If he had quite strong reasons for believing something negative about another individual, he would be diplomatic about how he handled this purported information; he might hint at it to the proper authorities to investigate further. He would not want to cause harm if at all possible.
.
Number 1 isn’t a clear case of “the ends justify the means”? What else would you need to know? Would his political affiliation or religion change the ethics? Social identity perhaps? Would the particular cause that he believed in change the ethics? He believed in his cause.
There can be no proof of whether he was right because once he lies, he alters the succeeding chain of events. If he had not lied it might have been proven to be true or false. But once the person injects his influence, no telling what complex perturbation of events unfolded and altered future events forever.
As to individual versus group, when people act as a team, it is the team that is sued for reparations. Corporations are being sued all of the time for their collective activity. Recently, I think it was CNN (perhaps MSNBC) was successfully sued for over $200,000,000 for doing exactly what the second example illustrates. In that case if the corporation had merely waited one day, evidence toward the innocence of their victim would have been revealed even if they spent no time or money on it. But they had an agenda. That was one very expensive day for them. But only one of many. They promote untruths a lot - as a corporate team.
So what more detail would you need to know concerning those 3 parties?
A different, although related issue–
That is largely and directly due to the influence of George Soros (spending $billions hiring and supporting prosecutors who promote criminality in many nations). It is the effect of a global socialist movement protecting itself against the people, its highest priority and the “good cause” believed in by very many “bad actors”. All prosecutors (the state) are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
And I’d be right, because neither know if I committed the murder. There is a difference between reporting a suspicion or making an accusation - these are just assumptions - and stating as a fact that x did y.
But it gets even more complicated. Even if it were stated as a fact that I did commit the murder, these people still wouldn’t be lying… because they have to know whether or not I did it for such a statement to qualify as a lie.
Spreading/giving false information is not the same as lying.
“He committed the murder.”
Is that a lie?
To bypass the hijacking let us return to the original argument of this thread that there is a better way to view human relations and human development.
Here is a selection that may simplify the new perspectives for you, may make clearer what the new and improved theory is trying to convey. Check it out:
LIVING THE GOOD LIFE (2007)
wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ … _Lifef.pdf
Was it helpful?
Questions? Comments?
Does the person who made that statement believe beyond a Cartesian doubt that he didn’t commit the murder?
If so, then it’s a lie.