Naked Ethics

ethics is behavioural fluency. it is talking nonesense beautifully. ethics is an art and following it is much more artful. observation and discipline is necessarily intended to be done eloquently. it is something much more deeper, much more profound than contemporary society. it is the presence of chaos amidst order and harmony.

Is this merely words chasing words? No. Sacrosanct is right: following Ethics is artful. And some people are more artists at complying with moral principles than are others. Although it is true that some are better than others at creating value in human interactions, we ought all attempt to create some value.

Perhaps the references below will give you some ideas as to how this is done. Check them out. Click on the links. and then …
Happy reading :exclamation:

It is true Trump has said silly things. So far, Trump had not done anything that a typical psychotic person would do. Has he?

In my opinion, Trump is not doing a good job with this Covid19 epidemic, but this is only one aspect of this total responsibility and thus we cannot judge merely on one specific performance.
It is not easy for any President of the USA, since the president do have have total control over the Senate and Congress.

However to be fair to any employee, in this case, Trump is an employee of the US Government, one has to prepare a report card and list down all the jobs [weighted] within his responsibility and he had done then produce a net result of his overall performance.

From what I’ve read, heard and noted, overall Trump has done a reasonable job [including the bad ones] until the emergence of the Covid19 pandemic.

Do you think Biden could do a better job than Trump. I noted Biden had cognitive deficit and at times incoherent.

If given the two ‘devils’, in the present circumstances, I believe Trump would still be the devil who can do a better job as President of the USA.

One who is ethically sensitive would have noticed, during the Republican debate for the party’s nomination for President, that Trump’s procedure was to disparage and demean his fellow candidates (and bestow on them a childish, derogatory nickname) – unethical conduct.
Then we learned by hearing his voice on a video, just before he stepped out of the bus he was on, that he bragged about grabbing women by the cr-tch. – vulgar, crude and unethical without prior consent.
Then, once he got the nomination his authoritarian lack of humility was exhibited when he blared out: “I’m the only one that can save you!!” - unethical.

The judgment that the guy would turn out to be corrupt has been confirmed time and again …violations of thee Emoluments clause in The Constitution, etc - unethical conduct.
Then came the impeachable offenses which continue to this day. Then when he learned that Russian bounties were paid for the killing of our soldiers in Afghanistan and he made no notice of that, no protest about it, that showed what a great Commander-in-Chief we have. - Utterly incompetent.

Now we are getting hints from Trump that he wants to be President-for-life: he said he might delay the Election, that the results would not be in by Election Day, that he intends to holler, “Fraud!!!”; etc. He has openly admired “Strong Men,” such as the ruler in Hungary, and the head man in in Brazil and in The Philippines.

Yes, Biden slips up at times. He may even sound incoherent for a moment. He is, like me, a fallible human being. [My quota is 40 bloops a day.} …but this is not about me. Rather it is about who is fit to be President. I would argue that Biden is infinitely-better than Trump for that job.

[size=85]pBTW, of what country are you a citizen, Prismatics?[/size]

You are hinging on too many speculations.
Let’s get back to being objective.
If you are an employee [as Trump is], don’t you want an objective assessment based on empirical evidences relevant to your performance.
I don’t think your employers would care what you say and act [unless it is evidently evil] outside work and within the company but rather what productive work you can contribute to the company.

[size=85]No precision. I am not from the ‘West’ but from the ‘Eastern’ side of the world.[/size]

This does not explain why tribalism has always existed in our species and still does no matter how advanced we become
So were we all programmed to think of humanity as merely a single entity then there would never be any divisions at all

That’s an interesting categorization you put forth. Some of us favor the traditional American value, along with social justice and civil disobedience. I count myself among them.

The topic of this thread is Applied Ethics, and what are the bare facts.

Yes, 30% ti 40% so far love him; and 60% are ‘turned off’ by him. He is indeed “the face of something deep”: namely, the attempt by multi-millionaires and billionaires to introduce fascism to the USA. I mean by “fascism” the merger of government and corporate administration run by oligarchs and favoring corporations. Often it results - as we have with Trump (and with Putin) today - in a kleptocracy.

Tribalism emerged out of necessity and is adaptive, i.e. has survival values.
It is noted humans in the early stages started with the realization of the advantage of being in small groups but they also realized the greater advantage of larger groups, thus larger and larger groups [tribes] are form as evident in modern times.
Naturally there are the cons of larger groups, thus the need for rules to manage whatever is immoral.

While the progress is towards larger group into one single entity, the thrust here is to develop common shared goals on critical issues, e.g. survival of the species.
Even with the drive for one single entity in terms of shared visions and goals, divisions are still needed re the necessity of specialization and its advantages.
E.g. an ant colony will act as one entity when the nest is under threat, but there are nevertheless different divisions and groups of ants doing their specialized task.

Thus the target is to strive for humanity to act as a single entity especially toward threats against the human species as a whole, e.g. climate change, limited resources, WMDs, rogue meteor/asteroid.

For example if there appear a rogue asteroid heading Earth’s path and is large enough to destroy Earth to smithereens, it is imperative that everyone on Earth think and act as one to deal with the threat rather than on their own group or tribe.
The same attitude need to be developed to deal with the other critical threats against the human species.

THE JOY OF LIVING ETHICALLY

Here is something to think about.

I will define three emotions in the order of how valuable they are. I’ll remind us of a key imperative of Ethics, the violation of which impedes the experiencing of the most valuable emotion. And will then draw an important conclusion from these deliberations.

The Unified Theory of Ethics is that new paradigm everyone has read about here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=195234 as well as in the References listed below which provide more details and clarification.
The following are three definitions derived from this Unified Theory of Ethics, using the three major Dimensions of Value to do the derivation. Those Dimensions are Systemic (“S”) value; Extrinsic (“E”) value; and Intrinsic (“I”) value.
Satisfaction is a Systemic emotion. Pleasure is an Extrinsic emotion. And Joy is an Intrinsic emotion. So here is an analysis of certain select emotions, arranging them from least (at the top) to most value.

S: Satisfaction
E: Pleasure
I: Joy

[Recall that one of the early theorems of Ethics (when phrased as an imperative) is Do no harm! To do harm is to conduct oneself immorally.]

Joy is the result of love (I-valuation.) Those who act immorally are not behaving lovingly toward those to whom they have done harm. Therefore to act immorally is to miss out on joy, to lack joy in their life.
Since a major benefit of complying with, and practicing, Ethics is to gain joy …as a result we feel sorry for those who don’t live their ethics. In an important sense, they are losers :exclamation:

You speak a lot but say nothing. You don’t know heaven and hell and beyond. It’s not your fault.

Again, you speak a lot and say nothing.

@ Progress:

To me, progress means trying to reach a goal.

Your idea of goodness centers, for example, is a form of progressivism, because it is an idea with a greater goal.

Most progress is considered as a moral obligation.
Sometimes progress runs backwards to what it normally does.

I like the idea of progress.

Thank you for speaking up.

I’m with you, Dan. I like the idea of progress also.

I am not sure I understand what you mean when you say “…progress runs backwards.” Isn’t the concept for that “regressions]”? Or “reaction”?

Please enlighten me here…

Yes, regressions.
Like saying life was better before the industrial revolution.

If I had a godly position, id probably take on the idea of leaving things alone,
unless they want to be some other way.

On the other hand, christian moral imparatives would say I must help all those in need.

This is yet another difficulty.

I used to want a revolution, where all beings are protected from death and helped to mentally evolve at a very fast rate.

Am I making an error in reconsidering this?

Let’s say aliens gave new technology to humanity.
There are many ups and downs with this,
but is it better that we get a boost?
In a way, more fortunate people can give a boost to less fortunate people,
sometimes. Maybe we all need a little boost?

The best way to help those in need is to empower them to help themselves: either teach them skills, or set up a sovereign-wealth fund of some sort. This fund will endow them sufficiently that they can then pursue their own constructive projects.
Many will choose just to play games, watch TV, or to fritter away their time; but every now and then an Albert Einstein, a Jeff Bezos, an Elon Musk will come along ,pursuing their respective hobbies, and they will create wealth equivalent to what thousands of lazy bums are not producing. The productivity of those few virtuosos (along with the organizations they will found) will make it all worth while.

Some day, when there is less ignorance, due to improved methods of instruction that are more efficient and effective, most all businesses that start up will be structured as Workers Cooperatives. The workers will be the owners, or will be putting in the swat-equity to buy in eventually as owners. Thus they will tend to vote to pay themselves more, work less hours, yet still get it done! The highest-paid worker will only be allowed to receive four-to-six times as much as the lowest-paid worker - thus leveling the hierarchy we see currently. At present we note thaat the top officials are often remunerated at more than a hundred times more than thaat thelowest-paid worker gets. So let’s endorse and promote workers co-ops That will bring us closer to an ethical world.

This is not only naked ethics – but also Ethics applied to Economics.

Comments? Philosophical observations? Responses?
.

“Some day” yes ‘some day’ …

I believe all human individuals and humanity need to strive to that “some day” where every individual will be equal in everyway and still aligning towards whatever is the common shared purpose of optimality for the well being of humanity.
In this case, there is no need for salary at all.
The above is not an impossibility and I am optimistic given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge.
But that some day could be a 100 years and more [150, 200, 500?] in the future.

In the meantime we have to be realistic in understanding thoroughly what is the reality state of the present and optimize within all its constraints while pushing at the fringe toward that ideal objective of that “some day”.

What I see with you is you are forcing and trying to fit the wrong pieces of the jigsaw puzzle which would not end up in alignment with and towards the ideal in the future but rather will cause more chaos.

Is this really what you consider to be ideal, Prismatic567, for if it is what becomes of the value many of us treasure, namely, our Individuality?

Would we be equal in our taste as to what is the best desert? Would we all look identical?! You did say “equal in every way” :exclamation: :exclamation:

Because of your stated belief I now understand a little better how you could be a Trump supporter.
At first I was baffled at how someone who I thought cared about ethics, and the ethical life, would not right away detect in Trump those qualities that vary inversely with morality, qualities such as hypocrisy, selfishness, inauthenticity and corruption. Here in the U.S.A let us proceed to vote in someone who will unite us and spread harmony, rather than division …someone who will be more likely to bring us together, to encourage cooperation, solidarity, brotherhood and sisterhood, and other Ethical qualities.

Now that we have more of a window into the recent poster’s state of mind we can better grasp how one can view a character - i.e., DJT - who has so many properties that are the very opposite of ethics, and still think he is suitable to be ‘the leader of the free world’ or even that he is suited to have any powerful position at all.

Invoking Principle of Charity.
Surely you are not expecting me to assert ‘equal in everyway’ to the extent of equal height, every physical features to the same number of molecules in each person?

What I implied re ‘equal in everyway’ is equal for every inequality that we and the majority at the present are striving for and complaining about, e.g. basic human rights, opportunities, moral competences, freedom of speech, etc.

That you are so paranoid with Trump is very telling of your psychological state.

Since I am not American and do not participate in its politics my view of Trump is that of a government servant and he should be appraised objectively based on his terms of employment like an employee anywhere else on Earth.

Thank you for that clarification, Prismatics. I agree with what you meant by “equal”, namely free speech, etc.
Since most adults have their biases, I don’t know how you are using the concept “objective.” I believe Trump does not regard himself as “a mere employee.” He is an exxtreme Narcissist who has delusions of grandeur.

I see thast you do care about ethics, and want a more-ethical future. Your criterion for a President may be too narrow, though.

I apologize if anything I said was offensive. I did not mean to insult anyone. I’'m okay and you’re okay.

Whatever Trump think he is, objectively, it is a fact he is a contracted employee and government servant of the USA.
Surely the President has to accept and signed an employment contract with the terms specified clearly within the contract. This obviously would be the objective basis to judge any contracted President.

As I had stated, Trump can be classed with situational leadership and note the results [positive and negative] he had produced within the current situations. I judge Trump performance is net-positive taken into account all the + and - he had done.

My Moral and Ethics stance is that of Kantian where every individual must strive* towards the absolute good [as defined by Kant]. * it is striving but without expectation to achieve the impossible ideal of the absolute good.

But in the present conditions we are way off from the ideal good.
If that ideal good is 100/100, I believe at present the average good we have achieved to date is merely 20/100, so there is a long way to go.

Whilst we cannot achieve the impossible ideal 100/100, humanity from the present must strive for the higher average on a continuous improvement basis to as high as we can optimize within whatever the current situation is, i.e. we need to improve from 20/100 to 25/100, 30, 50, 60 till we plateau below the ideal. [note the learning curve].

Then in the future, say in 50 years, no one will elect a President like the current Trump who is narcissistic, boorish, egoistic, boastful and other negatives but is capable to doing and optimizing in the job required in the present situation.

Perhaps then in the future, what we need is a Servant-Leader, not a situational leader, i.e.

In addition, the servant leader will possess the best ethical virtues and values as an exemplar to all.

Why not vote for a Servant Leader right now.

Such a one may be running for office currently. Clue: his VP choice has the initials CH. We need a feminine perspective to balance the masculine one. We need candidates who will bring us together rather than further divide us. We need public servants dedicated to making progress rather than to regression. Above all we need a President capable of empathy rather than selfishness. That is what Ethics teaches.

Notice that it pains most of us to cause pain to others, but it does not seem to pain Trump when he does so.

We urgently need to solve the Climate Crisis as well as the Pandemic Crisis. We need to avoid, or at least minimize, corruption. Note the reference to Behavioral Ethics …which has been integrated into the Unified Theory of Ethics which you can learn about in the STRUCTURE OF ETHICS paper linked to below: