Announcing a new science - its name is ETHICS

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

prof
Posts: 806
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Announcing a new science - its name is ETHICS

Post by prof » Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:48 am

Science is about what works.

The claim is being made here, {and in Living Successfully,
https://www.amazon.com/LIVING-SUCCESSFU ... 0212&sr=8-
[A Kindle app is necessary to read it..}

is that if you live by the principles offered in this book, then it not only will work in your own life, but also work to benefit the entire human race, in that it will make an ethical world more probable ...by the example you present and represent.

That it will help you have a harmonious life is a testable hypothesis. And it is falsifiable; for if you ignore the principles and behave in a contrary way the theory predicts you will have friction and disharmony in your life.

Once a goal is projected it is possible to objectively determine the most effective way of achieving the goal,. It is possible to evaluate how realistic it is, by calculating the probability of that goal being achieved at all.

Gravity still works. And harmony still works.

Life has value. Value is based upon meaning. Every individual wants life to have some meaning. For if not, life is empty, devoid of meaning. When life has no meaning for an individual, he or she is likely to commit suicide, to end life. In an ethical society, one made up of ethical individuals, we can predict that spousal abuse rates, crime rates, suicide rates, and murder rates will be way down. And war will be nearly absent. Statistical studies will confirm this. A society, region or culture with minimal crime and suicide statistics may have earned the right to regard itself as ethical.

In an ethical world people will live in harmony. The opposite of harmony is conflict, chaos, murder, and war. The logical argument being made here is:

1) The more ethical individuals there are, the nearer we all are to living in an ethical world.

2) An ethical individual would find life to be meaningful, would evaluate life as having some meaning.

3) Those who find meaning in life, in living in this world, do not normally commit suicide.

4) If a state or society (or local region) arranges its policies so that crime rates and suicide rates are close to zero, then it is justifiable to conclude that the society or region is an ethical one.

5) The more regions of this planet that are ethical, the closer we have come to an ethical world.

6) What is meaningful to us we speak of as having value.

7) Some commit suicide slowly by being destructive either to themselves or to others; they spread the opposite of harmony. Their conduct results in chaos and/or confusion. Or they display indifference to the intrinsic value of the human person, in all of its beautiful depth and complexity.

Some do things they will later in life regret – especially if they later develop an awakened, sensitive, educated conscience, for it may then bother them for the remainder of their years. It is best to avoid a guilty conscience in the first place. A person of good character knows this.

He or she will not permit himself to be dominated by, nor intimidated by, a selfish individual. In the long run the unselfish people who practice harmonious human relations will triumph. Harmony still works.


What say you?
Comments? Questions?

prof
Posts: 806
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Announcing a new science - its name is ETHICS

Post by prof » Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:04 am

In the the previous post I wrote about the concept "harmony," arguing that it is an essential factor of ethics. I also spoke there of chaos; and the following remarks are relevant to that:

One way to cause chaos is to do harm.

Harm is the opposite of harmony.

Therefore, we conclude as a life-guideline the imperative, Do no harm.

This has lots of implications for the setting of policy.

Torture, of course, is then out of the question; and so is violence. Although force is morally permissible according to the findings of the ethical scientists. The scientists in the field of Ethics make a distinction here.

Do you know the difference between "force" and "violence"?

Do you know what it is, as the science understands it? ....want to venture a guess?

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8006
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Announcing a new science - its name is ETHICS

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:15 am

Ethics is not, cannot be science.

Morals are about feelings and emotions and how they intersect with social realities.
Unless you care to reduce all humans to emotionless robots this entire thread, in which you seem to be having a conversation with yourself, is null and void.

creativesoul
Posts: 620
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Announcing a new science - its name is ETHICS

Post by creativesoul » Fri Mar 17, 2017 6:12 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
prof wrote:
thedoc wrote:
Becoming acquainted with the claimed field of study would require buying the book ... too much to ask.
Ethics -- ...it is difficult to see how it could be considered as a science.
Because it is "difficult to see how," that is exactly a good reason to read the book: LIVING SUCCESSFULLY: how the new science of Ethics will benefit you.
You are still wrong.
You are fundamentally wrong from your assumptions down.
This means that all your conclusions are false.
Not necessarily Hobbes. Assuming valid inference, true conclusions cannot follow from false premisses. However, an argument can have false premisses, and invalid argumentative form, and a true conclusion...

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8006
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Announcing a new science - its name is ETHICS

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Fri Mar 17, 2017 6:36 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
prof wrote:
Because it is "difficult to see how," that is exactly a good reason to read the book: LIVING SUCCESSFULLY: how the new science of Ethics will benefit you.
You are still wrong.
You are fundamentally wrong from your assumptions down.
This means that all your conclusions are false.
Not necessarily Hobbes. Assuming valid inference, true conclusions cannot follow from false premisses. However, an argument can have false premisses, and invalid argumentative form, and a true conclusion...
None of which applies here.
He is still wrong.

prof
Posts: 806
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Announcing a new science - its name is ETHICS

Post by prof » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:52 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Ethics is not, cannot be science.

Morals are about feelings and emotions and how they intersect with social realities.
Unless you care to reduce all humans to emotionless robots this entire thread, in which you seem to be having a conversation with yourself, is null and void.
I am having a conversation with you, Hobbes.

I do not "care to reduce all humans to emotionless robots," and do not know how you ever got that idea from my writings. I do note an easy shift in your thought between the two concepts "ethics" and "morals." {To me they are distinct ideas.} I don't discuss morals in the book, and I am not a moralist.

It all seems to come down to how you define "science" and "ethics." Obviously we differ on those notions. You don't seem to be at all aware of how I define my terms - which means you haven't read the book cited, for I do believe you are able (have the capacity) to comprehend the ideas in it. And I believe you would like them ....for they point to the same policies as those you advocate: feed the hungry; respect the common man and woman; have solidarity with the worker; etc.

I would like to learn more about how you see emotions intersecting with social realities. It would be helpful if you educated us on that topic.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8006
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Announcing a new science - its name is ETHICS

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:53 am

prof wrote:And I believe you would like them ....for they point to the same policies as those you advocate: feed the hungry; respect the common man and woman; have solidarity with the worker; etc..
There is no scientific basis for these ideas.
Ethics is about choices made from feelings. Morals are opinions, they are nor factual.
Science cannot 'care' about what morals I choose to select.
Science is about objects; not subjects.

creativesoul
Posts: 620
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Announcing a new science - its name is ETHICS

Post by creativesoul » Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:46 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
creativesoul wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
You are still wrong.
You are fundamentally wrong from your assumptions down.
This means that all your conclusions are false.
Not necessarily Hobbes. Assuming valid inference, true conclusions cannot follow from false premisses. However, an argument can have false premisses, and invalid argumentative form, and a true conclusion...
None of which applies here.
He is still wrong.
Well Hobbes, don't get me wrong... I'm just pointing out that being fundamentally wrong from assumptions down doesn't necessarily mean that a conclusion is false. A statement of conclusion is false(or not) based solely upon whether or not it corresponds to reality, as compared/contrasted to whether or not it validly follows from true premisses. All of these rules/conditions most certainly apply here AND he can/may still be wrong(offering false conclusions)...

:wink:

creativesoul
Posts: 620
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Announcing a new science - its name is ETHICS

Post by creativesoul » Sat Mar 18, 2017 5:59 am

prof wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Ethics is not, cannot be science.

Morals are about feelings and emotions and how they intersect with social realities.
Unless you care to reduce all humans to emotionless robots this entire thread, in which you seem to be having a conversation with yourself, is null and void.
I am having a conversation with you, Hobbes.

I do not "care to reduce all humans to emotionless robots," and do not know how you ever got that idea from my writings. I do note an easy shift in your thought between the two concepts "ethics" and "morals." {To me they are distinct ideas.} I don't discuss morals in the book, and I am not a moralist.
Greetings prof. I'm called "creativesoul" in this place, but I want to make it clear from the beginning that I'm neither theist nor atheist. It would also not be accurate to call me "agnostic", because it's not so much that I believe that I don't know whether or not there is any such thing as supernatural entities, and/or creators of the universe, but rather that I am of the strong viewpoint that when logical possibility alone grounds any statement of thought/belief, then it is the weakest foundation possible for building others upon it.

If it is the case that an explanation for human existence has no firmer ground than logical possibility alone, then there is no reason to place much value in it as an explanation, for utter absurdity resides in precisely such soil.

8)

So, I'm a bit curious on this distinction between ethics and morals. If you'd like to, I think that we may be able to create and perhaps maintain an interesting philosophical discussion about ethics.

What say you?

:D

creativesoul
Posts: 620
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Announcing a new science - its name is ETHICS

Post by creativesoul » Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:09 am

prof wrote:...The logical argument being made here is:

1) The more ethical individuals there are, the nearer we all are to living in an ethical world.

2) An ethical individual would find life to be meaningful, would evaluate life as having some meaning.

3) Those who find meaning in life, in living in this world, do not normally commit suicide.

4) If a state or society (or local region) arranges its policies so that crime rates and suicide rates are close to zero, then it is justifiable to conclude that the society or region is an ethical one.

5) The more regions of this planet that are ethical, the closer we have come to an ethical world.

6) What is meaningful to us we speak of as having value.

7) Some commit suicide slowly by being destructive either to themselves or to others; they spread the opposite of harmony. Their conduct results in chaos and/or confusion. Or they display indifference to the intrinsic value of the human person, in all of its beautiful depth and complexity....

{snip}

...What say you?
Comments? Questions?
Why call that an argument?

:(

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8006
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Announcing a new science - its name is ETHICS

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:32 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
creativesoul wrote:
Not necessarily Hobbes. Assuming valid inference, true conclusions cannot follow from false premisses. However, an argument can have false premisses, and invalid argumentative form, and a true conclusion...
None of which applies here.
He is still wrong.
Well Hobbes, don't get me wrong... I'm just pointing out that being fundamentally wrong from assumptions down doesn't necessarily mean that a conclusion is false. A statement of conclusion is false(or not) based solely upon whether or not it corresponds to reality, as compared/contrasted to whether or not it validly follows from true premisses. All of these rules/conditions most certainly apply here AND he can/may still be wrong(offering false conclusions)...

:wink:
Can your grandmother suck eggs, or do you try to teach here how?

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8006
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Announcing a new science - its name is ETHICS

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:39 pm

prof wrote:...The logical argument being made here is:

1) The more ethical individuals there are, the nearer we all are to living in an ethical world.

Question begging nonsense.


2) An ethical individual would find life to be meaningful, would evaluate life as having some meaning.


Question begging nonsense.


3) Those who find meaning in life, in living in this world, do not normally commit suicide.



Rubbish. It is a perfectly ethical act to end your life at a time of your own choosing. You are not demonstrating any logic here at all


4) If a state or society (or local region) arranges its policies so that crime rates and suicide rates are close to zero, then it is justifiable to conclude that the society or region is an ethical one.


You mean like Soviet Russia?


5) The more regions of this planet that are ethical, the closer we have come to an ethical world.


Question begging nonsense.


6) What is meaningful to us we speak of as having value.



But values, social values are NEVER universal. That's why your ideas are solipsistic nonsense; blinkered, unimaginitive.


7) Some commit suicide slowly by being destructive either to themselves or to others; they spread the opposite of harmony. Their conduct results in chaos and/or confusion. Or they display indifference to the intrinsic value of the human person, in all of its beautiful depth and complexity....



I think here we are getting a glimpse into your personal psychological hangups, which you erroneously think can apply more generally.

{snip}

...What say you?
Comments? Questions?

creativesoul
Posts: 620
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Announcing a new science - its name is ETHICS

Post by creativesoul » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:59 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
creativesoul wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
None of which applies here.
He is still wrong.
Well Hobbes, don't get me wrong... I'm just pointing out that being fundamentally wrong from assumptions down doesn't necessarily mean that a conclusion is false. A statement of conclusion is false(or not) based solely upon whether or not it corresponds to reality, as compared/contrasted to whether or not it validly follows from true premisses. All of these rules/conditions most certainly apply here AND he can/may still be wrong(offering false conclusions)...

:wink:
Can your grandmother suck eggs, or do you try to teach here how?
I'm not trying to teach you anything Hobbes. As a matter of course, I strongly suspect that you know all that. Other readers may not...

:mrgreen:

prof
Posts: 806
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Announcing a new science - its name is ETHICS

Post by prof » Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:31 am

creativesoul wrote:
prof wrote:... note an easy shift in between the two concepts "ethics" and "morals." {To me they are distinct ideas.} I don't discuss morals in the book, and I am not a moralist.
Greetings prof... when logical possibility alone grounds any statement of thought/belief, then it is the weakest foundation possible for building others upon it.

If it is the case that an explanation for human existence has no firmer ground than logical possibility alone, then there is no reason to place much value in it as an explanation, for utter absurdity resides in precisely such soil. 8)

So, I'm a bit curious on this distinction between ethics and morals. If you'd like to, I think that we may be able to create and perhaps maintain an interesting philosophical discussion about ethics.
What say you? :D
As the case reasoned out in the book explains, you are so right in giving low priority to Systemic Value, for it is the lowest of the three basic value dimensions. S-value is the value of logical structures, sets of symbols, financial systems, dogmas, ideologies, creeds, systems in general, etc. To read the book you will need the Kindle app, and three bucks - unless you are entitled to Kindle MatchBook: then it is free of all charge.


In the late 15th century the idea that light beams would have anything to do with euclidean geometry struck many persons as "absurd"! Yet later Newton showed that a straight line (a notion in that geometry) would best explain the data. In the same way the frame-of-reference of any science gives a meaning to its terms that often do not coincide with ordinary usage of the same term. In spite of that the terms in the scientific theory when related to the other terms of the system serve to best explain the formerly-unordered data. So a science matches up a framework with a chaos of data thereby ordering and explaining that data.

The same is true of Ethics. It takes notions such as: altruism, philanthropy, empathy, compassion, kindness, cooperation, harmony of interrelations, reciprocity, win/win outcomes, moral principles, prescriptive imperatives, guidelines to success, freedom, happiness, conscience, hypocrisy, guilt, greed, caring, pleasure, consideration, satisfaction, love, war, corruption, joy, etc., etc., and relates them all (to each other) in a meaningful way; thereby making order out of chaos. Science provides a pattern where there was none before.

Then the designers and engineers can come along and create technologies that make life run smoother,' grease the wheels' so to speak; they make our lives more comfortable, less tense, more secure, less quarrelsome, increase our capacities. Examples are the printing press, the jury system, the mediation services, new and improved approaches to therapy and to life-counseling, placement services, matchmaking services, universal-basic-income experiments, or wealth-sharing funds such as they have in Alaska, U>S.A., etc., etc. This comprises Applied Ethics at its best.

So I would very much like to discuss ethics with an individual who knows Logic well, such as you, for I sense you have the intellect to grasp the concepts that are entailed. Once you have read the book cited in the original post, you will know my orientation and will be able to offer an intelligent critique worthy of a philosopher. Also at this link see the three Comments in response to Cathy the culture-bound critic.
https://www.amazon.com/LIVING-SUCCESSFU ... 205&sr=8-1&

The theoretical framework offered in the paper, the booklet, is responsive to an ever-changing moral climate and is capable of transcending many contemporary mores, although Cathy, the cultural anthropologist, has a priory convinced herself that it is too rigid even though she has not read through the document. Every proposition in science is highly-tentative, subject to revision when better models some along. She sys that it will be outdated in a generation - but that implies it will be useful for about twenty years :!:
.

creativesoul
Posts: 620
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Announcing a new science - its name is ETHICS

Post by creativesoul » Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:56 am

prof wrote:
creativesoul wrote:
prof wrote:... note an easy shift in between the two concepts "ethics" and "morals." {To me they are distinct ideas.} I don't discuss morals in the book, and I am not a moralist.
Greetings prof... when logical possibility alone grounds any statement of thought/belief, then it is the weakest foundation possible for building others upon it.

If it is the case that an explanation for human existence has no firmer ground than logical possibility alone, then there is no reason to place much value in it as an explanation, for utter absurdity resides in precisely such soil. 8)

So, I'm a bit curious on this distinction between ethics and morals. If you'd like to, I think that we may be able to create and perhaps maintain an interesting philosophical discussion about ethics.
What say you? :D
As the case reasoned out in the book explains, you are so right in giving low priority to Systemic Value, for it is the lowest of the three basic value dimensions. S-value is the value of logical structures, sets of symbols, financial systems, dogmas, ideologies, creeds, systems in general, etc. To read the book you will need the Kindle app, and three bucks - unless you are entitled to Kindle MatchBook: then it is free of all charge.


In the late 15th century the idea that light beams would have anything to do with euclidean geometry struck many persons as "absurd"! Yet later Newton showed that a straight line (a notion in that geometry) would best explain the data. In the same way the frame-of-reference of any science gives a meaning to its terms that often do not coincide with ordinary usage of the same term. In spite of that the terms in the scientific theory when related to the other terms of the system serve to best explain the formerly-unordered data. So a science matches up a framework with a chaos of data thereby ordering and explaining that data.
I'm struggling to understand how a "frame-of-reference", as that notion is being used above, is anything other than what you've called "Systemic Value", also as it has been explained above. Seems a bit self-contradictory, unless placing little value in scientific frames-of-reference is acceptable to you, which seems a bit odd at this time.
The same is true of Ethics. It takes notions such as: altruism, philanthropy, empathy, compassion, kindness, cooperation, harmony of interrelations, reciprocity, win/win outcomes, moral principles, prescriptive imperatives, guidelines to success, freedom, happiness, conscience, hypocrisy, guilt, greed, caring, pleasure, consideration, satisfaction, love, war, corruption, joy, etc., etc., and relates them all (to each other) in a meaningful way; thereby making order out of chaos. Science provides a pattern where there was none before.

Then the designers and engineers can come along and create technologies that make life run smoother,' grease the wheels' so to speak; they make our lives more comfortable, less tense, more secure, less quarrelsome, increase our capacities. Examples are the printing press, the jury system, the mediation services, new and improved approaches to therapy and to life-counseling, placement services, matchmaking services, universal-basic-income experiments, or wealth-sharing funds such as they have in Alaska, U>S.A., etc., etc. This comprises Applied Ethics at its best.

So I would very much like to discuss ethics with an individual who knows Logic well, such as you, for I sense you have the intellect to grasp the concepts that are entailed. Once you have read the book cited in the original post, you will know my orientation and will be able to offer an intelligent critique worthy of a philosopher. Also at this link see the three Comments in response to Cathy the culture-bound critic.
https://www.amazon.com/LIVING-SUCCESSFU ... 205&sr=8-1&

The theoretical framework offered in the paper, the booklet, is responsive to an ever-changing moral climate and is capable of transcending many contemporary mores, although Cathy, the cultural anthropologist, has a priory convinced herself that it is too rigid even though she has not read through the document. Every proposition in science is highly-tentative, subject to revision when better models some along. She sys that it will be outdated in a generation - but that implies it will be useful for about twenty years :!:
.
I'm interested in how it is exactly that you're drawing a meaningful distinction between ethics and morality. I'm not interested in reading a book in order to read the answer. I think that that could be done rather easily here on this forum, if such a distinction is drawn and held by you. We could look at that as the first step in establishing a frame-of-reference.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests