Can there be shared community values?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

prof
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Can there be shared community values?

Post by prof » Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:34 am

It came to my attention that the wife of the former CEO and founder of the J. M. Smucker Company is active in the civic life of Orrville, Ohio, USA. Among her many other philanthropic activities, she coordinated the initiation of the Heartland Educational Community, Inc. It was set up by the aforementioned corporation, along with regional universities, foundations, and with the help of The Institute for Global Ethics. The Heartland has the stated goal of "shifting the focus from school to education, and shifting the responsibility from school to community."

I learned that in recent years she has conducted 24 Community Ethics seminars. It is a Character Education program which emphasizes shared community values. {So far, this sounds like a report that belongs in the Applied Ethics forum ...not here in the Theory discussion forum. Let us though examine what her organization means by "Shared Community Values."}

The values which emerged (as those upon which there is a global-wide consensus that this is what "ethics" is about) are these:

Honesty, Respect, Responsibility, Compassion, Self-control, Commitment, Fairness, Moral Courage, and Cooperation.


If Ethics means anything it is a concern with these values.

[Incidentally, centering in on values avoids all the unnecessary difficulties that arise when "action" is made the central focus. For that results in grappling with such pseudo-issues as "Is a lie wrong because of the results that may ensue, or because it is a lie - and lies are always forbidden?" To phrase it another way: "Is a lie permissible when it leads to some good outcome (as a Consequentialist would argue), or is it forbidden just because the act is a lie?" (and Deontology explains why a lie is always wrong since it can't be universalized without ending all civilization.)

Philosophers have been known to dispute these matters, while slipping easily among usage of the terms "consequence," "act," "action," and "activity," without defining any of these words, or bothering to differentiate them.]


:idea: :arrow: It is logical, for theoretic convenience, to divide Ethics into two branches: Individual Ethics and Social Ethics. Then the question arises, How classify the shared community values? In what branch do each of them belong?

It seems to me that it is sensible to regard Honesty, Compassion, Fairness and Cooperation as concerns where others are involved, and thus I would put them in the Social Ethics department of Ethical Theory.

Furthermore, Commitment and Self-control are best classified as belonging to Individual Ethics as topics for analysis and explication.

There are however values that overlap both fields. Here I would say belong: Respect, Responsibility, and Moral Courage {and maybe even Honesty, since we can lie to ourselves.} An individual can have Self-Respect and can respect others. There is Responsibility assumed by the person as part of a commitment to be a moral individual of good character who wants to live ethically; and there definitely is also Social Responsibility (which includes a quest for social justice, and an extension of human rights (to gays, women, those of dark complexion, those of 'foreign' national origin, or who hold 'strange' religious ideas, etc.)

Moral Courage, when it takes the form of an individual being a whistle-blower who unearths and reveals corruption in an institution, in government, or in a corporation or business falls into the intersection of Individual and Social Ethics. It is inter-departmental - interdisciplinary, so to speak.

For many of these values I devote to each a chapter -showing how they fit into the big picture, and clarifying them - in my essay, Living Successfully, a link to which is here:
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/HOW%20 ... SFULLY.pdf

Your reviews of this approach to Ethical Theory is welcomed.
Did you learn anything of value by perusing the manuscript?
Can you suggest any improvements when the contents of this paper is combined with the material in the earlier effort, BASIC ETHICS: A systematic approach http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf

I wrote the latter booklet three years ago; and the former this year (2017.) The latter offers a more-logical presentation, as it proceeds from Meta-philosophy to philosophy; and from Moral Philosophy to Ethics as a science; from pure Theory to Applied Ethics - that is, to policy questions and to practical implications of the axioms and theorems.

Many critics say a Science of Ethics is impossible, but they fail to define their terms nor do they attempt to understand where the scientific Ethicists are coming from: how they employ their terminology, what motivates them.

Your views?

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1033
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:13 am

prof wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:34 am
Many critics say a Science of Ethics is impossible, but they fail to define their terms nor do they attempt to understand where the scientific Ethicists are coming from: how they employ their terminology, what motivates them.
The science of ethics you propose is not a science, it has no data methods. It relies on factually absurd claims that some objects can have more properties than other objects (look close enough and all objects in 3 dimensional space have infinite properties). You back that nonsense up with the utterly unscientific pretence that some properties are more numerous than competing properties just because, on an unscientific emotional level, they matter more to you for no universal reason.

Your critics don't have problems defining terms. We have issues getting you to recognise the implications of the terms you define. Particularly the bait and switch you do where you attempt to measure one class of thing - properties - and call it something else entirely- namely the ethic you are hoping it tracks.

I don't know about your other critics, but when I tried to discuss this with you a long time ago all you did was flounder for a bit and then dismiss me from conversation because you wanted "constructive" criticism. I don't think you should embed petty snipes such as that in your posts, it's neither terribly nice nor entirely honest.
prof wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:34 am
For many of these values I devote to each a chapter -showing how they fit into the big picture, and clarifying them - in my essay, Living Successfully, a link to which is here:
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/HOW%20 ... SFULLY.pdf
I'm sorry, I didn'y realise you are the great Marvin the Cat himself. You always seemed to be writing about that guy as another person before. Why do you keep telling us to read the answers to questions you can't answer in this pamphlet if you are the author and it doesn't have the answers either?

prof
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by prof » Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:13 am
The science of ethics . . relies on the absurd claims that some objects can have more properties than other objects (look close enough and all objects in 3 dimensional space have infinite properties). You back that nonsense up with the utterly unscientific pretence that some properties are more numerous than competing properties just because ... they matter more to you ....

Hi Dangerpants

I apologize for being rude to you. It was not nice when I wondered aloud why you had used "turd" for your example. [Perhaps one was leaving himself open for a snide remark but I shouldn't have taken the bait.] You deserve a serious response which is given with all due respect - see the following remarks:

Even though I have gladly defined precisely what I mean by "science," if I am accused of "pretense" or some other moral defect, - Chapter 22 of this book teaches us how to handle the situation when insults or disrespect come our way:
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/HOW%20 ... SFULLY.pdf
See pp. 83-85. } Dr. Ellis, to whom I refer there, was influenced by Epictetus, the Stoic.

May I respectfully suggest that readers and Forum participants brush up on a contribution to Philosophy by one Edmund Husserl, who taught a subject he called Phenomenology.

He pointed out the fact that different people invest varying amounts of attention and personal involvement as they regard the same object, topic, thing, or person. Say the object is x. Some are more indifferent to x. They don't give a damn about it. Some care intensely about it. Some are mildly interested and they partially identify with x if only out of their compassion for things they perceive as hurting. It's not how many properties x has; focus instead on how many properties x is conceived to have! Husserl in a detached objective way described these facts about human nature. Study up on it if you haven't yet. You may find it fascinating.

Dr.Robert S. Hartman went a step further,, and applied Logic and rigor. He discovered - not invented - the universal prevalence of these dimensions of value, S, E, and I. If one does his or her research - on the assumption that he or she cares to learn - one would take a look at (or even better, a careful examination of) the chart presented in End Note 4 of the paper A Unified Theory of Ethics. Here is a link to it. See pp. 63-66 to view the chart/table.
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/A%20UNI ... ETHICS.pdf

It is easy for a pessimist or cynic to dismiss that table as "an attempt to explain everything" saying ..."I've seen such attempts before!" which criticism is a mis-characterization. Why? Because it does not explain everything; of course not. Secondly, what is wrong with wanting to find a system that does account for, and pulls together, much of phenomena and numena that people have been confused about?

Isn't that what the search for truth, and Philosophy (love of wisdom), is all about? Knowledge is different from information. Knowledge relates information; it connects the dots. It integrates and synthesizes random bits of data. {That is how I define "knowledge." If you have a better definition of it, I would love to hear of it. For I would then learn something valuable.}

The dimensions of Value that R. S. Hartman discovered to be widely-prevalent in the human universe are indeed valuable to be cognizent of ... if one wants to be aware. I thank him for enlightening me about them when he was a visiting professsor at M.I.T. and I audited his courses. [Hartman, before me, sat in on Husserl's courses in Germany.]

After you have studied a bit more (with an open mind) - as I am confident you, as a serious scholar will - the field you are criticizing and ridiculing, then we can discuss it more intelligently and dispassionately. See as a prerequisite the early pages of BASIC ETHICS wherein the Dimensions of Value are carefully defined as sets, in the mathematical sense; and where it is demonstrated why they form themselves on a spectrum ...from finite to infinite. It all depends on the conception an individual forms when regarding x ...depends upon how much of himself he invests in x.
You may have hear the ordinary usage: "I'm not into it." or "He's totally wrapped up in that hobby, that pursuit" or "She is the whole world to him." This refers to the degree of involvement an individual may have.

The values test, the HVP, described in some detail in Appendix One of ETHICS: A College Course
http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... Course.pdf
and also in leading handbooks of Standardized Psychological tests [such as Buro's] as widely used by psychotherapists and life coaches, measures with precision these Value Dimensions. Check it out. Take the test yourself, and learn what your cognitive assets are. Then use these strengths of yours in life, emphasize them, and your life, and you will notice that your life will improve in its quality. You will be thanking me for having suggested this for your benefit.

Best of luck to you!

It turns out: We make our own luck.....

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1033
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:45 pm

prof wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 am
Even though I have gladly defined precisely what I mean by "science,"
If you are so glad, please do so again without setting 22 chapters of homework.
prof wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 am
It's not how many properties x has; focus instead on how many properties x is conceived to have! Husserl in a detached objective way described these facts about human nature. Study up on it if you haven't yet. You may find it fascinating.
I'm super impressed if you think Husserl's description of the thing was objective. But the thing being described is very clearly subjective, and therefore not suited for an objective science. Unless that definition of science you are gladly sharing doesn't require objectivity and reproducible observation?
prof wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 am
Dr.Robert S. Hartman went a step further,, and applied Logic and rigor. He discovered - not invented - the universal prevalence of these dimensions of value, S, E, and I. If one does his or her research - on the assumption that he or she cares to learn - one would take a look at (or even better, a careful examination of) the chart presented in End Note 4 of the paper A Unified Theory of Ethics. Here is a link to it. See pp. 63-66 to view the chart/table.
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/A%20UNI ... ETHICS.pdf
Are you being serious? One of the entries there says that space has the "Systemic Value"="mathematical space"; "Extrinsic Value"="aeronautical and geographical space"; "Intrinsic Value"="Paradise".
Don't tell me that little set was discovered not invented, it's total bullshit.
All of the table there is equally sad rubbish that I should be seeing in a bad self help book, not a weighty philosophical tome of great importance.
prof wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 am
It is easy for a pessimist or cynic to dismiss that table as "an attempt to explain everything" saying ..."I've seen such attempts before!
I have honestly never seen that before. I also enjoyed...

Entities: "Systemic Value"="Universals"; "Extrinsic Value"="Particulars"; "Intrinsic Value"="Individuals"
Gratification: "Systemic Value"="Satisfaction"; "Extrinsic Value"="Pleasure"; "Intrinsic Value"="Joy"
In one of those, the extrinsic value is in opposition to the intrinsic, in the other it's practically a synonym.

Your working here is pretty much random, I see what you've done to get there. You put a value you like a lot in the I column, then you put something you think is a lesser version in the extrinsic, and finally something empty, vague or bad in the S column. It's just whatever you can think of that is less valuable in your opinion than the thing to its left isn't it? thet's the entire extent of the system that gave us this awful chart.

So look properly at the things you have in that S column. It contains Equal Treatment Under Law on one row, and Chauvinism in another. nobody discovered this matrix, they wrote what they wanted to be in the good column and then reverse engineered the rest of the set, much of it with complete nonsense. As for the Extrinsic column, well that is just a mess.
prof wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 am
Isn't that what the search for truth, and Philosophy (love of wisdom), is all about? Knowledge is different from information. Knowledge relates information; it connects the dots. It integrates and synthesizes random bits of data. {That is how I define "knowledge." If you have a better definition of it, I would love to hear of it. For I would then learn something valuable.}
That isn't a profound observation. It is just a guy following the boring formula: thing != related but different thing = WOW!!!!!
Bill has written countless posts using the same formula, even Bob has done a couple. I expect better from smart people.
prof wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 am
The dimensions of Value that R. S. Hartman discovered to be widely-prevalent in the human universe are indeed valuable to be cognizent of ... if one wants to be aware. I thank him for enlightening me about them when he was a visiting professor at M.I.T. and I audited his courses. [Hartman, before me, sat in on Husserl's courses in Germany.]
Are you telling me you are actually a professor of philosophy?
Why is your argument so dependent on sleight of hand if you are educated to spot these things?
prof wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 am
It all depends on the conception an individual forms when regarding x ...depends upon how much of himself he invests in x.
The rest of that paragraph is not really relevant. You are invalidating your claims to science by abandoning objectivity when you clearly show that this depends on a subjective evaluation for its data, which cannot be objectively assessed. You can't make a science out of a man possibly being wrong when he looks at a dog.


Please stop setting me homework. I did read the first half of one of your links the first time you did that to me. When I came back to you with objections, you were condescending and evasive, and then you dismissed me out of hand. You haven't stopped being condescending yet, so I am not wasting chunks of my life that way again.

Viveka
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by Viveka » Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:53 pm

It appears that your valuation scale and the things valued are simply a shitty version of an IQ test. Ask a tribe in the Sahara what they find good and you'll have a different set of values. For instance, Honor is not known nowadays by modern cultures, but it is valued by so-called primitive cultures, and in the past it was valued by relatively advanced civilizations, such as the Samurai in Japanese old culture. What about 'Strength'? 'Strength' as a initiation into manhood is also something that is valued by more or less 'primitive' cultures, but we do not hear about Initiation rituals in our modern day mainstream consumer-culture. I could go on and on about certain values that are not common to most people nowadays, at least in America and other civilized melting-pots such as Europe and the Netherlands.

prof
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by prof » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:57 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:45 pm
prof wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 am
Even though I have gladly defined precisely what I mean by "science,"
If you are so glad, please do so again.
prof wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 am
It's not how many properties x has; focus instead on how many properties x is conceived to have! Husserl in a detached objective way described these facts about human nature. Study up on it if you haven't yet. You may find it fascinating.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:45 pm
...the thing being described is very clearly subjective, and therefore not suited for an objective science....
prof wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 am
Dr.Robert S. Hartman went a step further,, and applied Logic and rigor. He discovered - not invented - the universal prevalence of these dimensions of value, S, E, and I.
prof wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 am
It is easy for a pessimist or cynic to dismiss that table as "an attempt to explain everything" saying ..."I've seen such attempts before!
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:45 pm
I have honestly never seen that before. I ... enjoyed...

Entities: "Systemic Value"="Universals"; "Extrinsic Value"="Particulars"; "Intrinsic Value"="Individuals"
Gratification: "Systemic Value"="Satisfaction"; "Extrinsic Value"="Pleasure"; "Intrinsic Value"="Joy"
You put ...something empty, vague or bad in the S column. ...
So look properly at the things you have in that S column. It contains Equal Treatment Under Law....
Are universals (such as redishness) bad? Is being satisfied bad? Is equal treatment bad? Is it, to you, empty?
....Interesting....
prof wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 am
The dimensions of Value that R. S. Hartman discovered to be widely-prevalent in the human universe are indeed valuable to be cognizant of ... if one wants to be aware. I thank him for enlightening me about them when he was a visiting professor at M.I.T.

...It all depends on the conception an individual forms when regarding x ...depends upon how much of himself he invests in x.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:45 pm
You are invalidating your claims to science by abandoning objectivity when you cleaarly show that this depends on a subjective evaluation for its data, which cannot be objectively assessed. You can't make a science out of a man possibly being wrong ....
All day long, professional scientists in the field of Optometry ask a patient: "Does this lens make it clearer, or does that one?" They then prescribe glasses. It was based on subjective reports.

The fact is that with the aid of the Hartman Value Profile, a measuring instrument Hartman devised, it is now possible to take subjective projections and objectively analyze them. Life Coaches, Human Relations Counselors, Therapists do this all the time, using that test. Then a course of behavioral change is prescribed which when practiced improves the Quality of Life of the one counseled, according to the Reviews and the feedback later given.

[A forest can be described as "Dense" or "Thinned out." Those are rough measures -- but they are measures. At present, in the Science of Ethics the units of measurement are rough, but as time goes on, and as more brains cooperate in the effort, the measures will get to be more and more refined: the correlations will get to better degrees of significance. This has been the history of science. If you study the history of Aeronautics, for example, you will note how strong the skepticism was before the Wright Brothers came along that humans would ever be able to fly in heavier-than-air crafts!! It was the same for other sciences: enormous hooting and hollering before the major breakthroughs occurred.]
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:45 pm
I did read the first half of one of your links ... I am not wasting chunks of my life that way again.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Pants is at the outset of this post asking me to please define "science" again for him [in other words, reproduce here the entire Chapter Five, p.20 of ETHICS: A College Course], but says he won't "waste any time" reading it. How about that??!!!
See: http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/wp-cont ... course.pdf

Yes, we agree that science requires reproducible data. The science of Ethics has that. It also employs only hypotheses that are falsifiable, which it puts to the test. Although every individual is different it may surprise some to find out how much alike we are. {Sam, say, may over-value things and under-value people while Bill over-values systems and under-values things - but they both fail to lead balanced lives. They have that in common. Jim may love chewing-gum and Sarah may love pounding away at a piano, but they both have their loves.}
Last edited by prof on Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1033
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:38 pm

prof wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:57 pm
The fact is that with the aid of the Hartman Value Profile, a measuring instrument Hartman devised, it is now possible to take subjective projections and objectively analyze them. Life Coaches, Human Relations Counselors, Therapists do this all the time, using that test. Then a course of behavioral change is prescribed which when practiced improves the Quality of Life of the one counseled, according to the Reviews and the feedback later given.
I can't believe this has descended so quickly to the point where I am expected to treat a life coach as a practitioner of science. Fine, if that's where you are aiming to get to, you can call your crap "science" if homeopaths can do so with theirs.

Somebody claiming to be a professor of philosophy using the phrase "objectively analyze" regarding subjective data and hoping that converts it into objective data is just saddening. It makes me feel bad for you.

prof
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by prof » Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:16 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:38 pm
prof wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:57 pm
The fact is that with the aid of the Hartman Value Profile, a measuring instrument Hartman devised, it is now possible to take subjective projections and objectively analyze them.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:38 pm
using the phrase "objectively analyze" regarding subjective data and hoping that converts it into objective data is just saddening.
This latter statement commits The Fallacy of Method. It displays a confusion between the object of analysis and the analysis itself. Botany doesn't smell. Roses smell. Botany analyzes roses.

If I knew nothing about Statistics, or about Musicology, and if I wanted to learn more about it I would go to an expert in that field and ask,"Tell me about it, please." I would show a little humility. I would not ridicule and deride a body of knowledge I was ignorant about. I would not fling about Ad Hominems toward the expert in that specialty. .......but that's just me.

IMHO to show disrespect is to 'turn off' the teacher, who then will not want to dialog with you any more.

What I am trying to do is to construct a better Ethical Theory than those seen before. In order to grasp it, one needs to read up on the background material. Is that asking much?
It's not about me. It's not about credentials and status: it is about the intellectual structure of the theory.

If someone reads part of a treatise and does not appreciate nor understand what was there, then it was not written for him. Those who can understand will see the merit and will carry the project further - if they have the talent and/or the capacity.

p.s. This thread is about the character education seminars that were held under the guidance of The Institute for Global Ethics. This organization found that when people around the world were asked, in their native tongue, what "Ethics" meant to them? they, time and again, replied by mentioning some of those values listed in the o.p.

In the seminars, those assembled would discuss these concepts and specify and clarify what each of the values meant to them personally. It seems to be a way of teaching ethics to adults. I brought it to your attention for your evaluation and comments. Do you have another, or a better, method to offer?


Comments? Questions?

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1033
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:16 am

I see no fallacy of method there, and I see no relationship between that fallacy and your explanation of it " confusion between the object of analysis and the analysis itself". Furthermore that sentence is not descriptive of my point. You are attempting to make some subjective things appear objective by sleight of hand. Simply using the colloquial edition of objectivity in a sentence adjacent to something formally subjective does not objective data make. There is nothing fallacious at all in pointing that low quality manoeuvre.

I shouldn't need to put this in other words for the sake of a professor, but here goes.... When you say the patient and the life coach objectively analyse the patient's subjective experiences.... that doesn't translate the patient's subjective experience into objective data. The use of "objectively" in the previous sentence was colloquial. Every science that is not a pseudo-science uses objective data. Please don't annoy with the optometry thing again, that was just silly and desperate.

I've asked you plenty of questions. An expert in a field is able to answer questions. You are not. You evade them, you pull the reject the premise trick like a politician. You've cited one logical fallacy above which I find dubious - and then you've carelessly thrown "ad hominems" into the mix which is just a way of muddying the water unless you are able to back it up with some fallacious ad hom I've used?

The intellectual structure of your theory has some obvious major problems. There are things you claim are established in the first few pages of one of your books which are highly dubious and the rest of your argument is clearly fully dependent on them. Your book doe not adequately establish those claims and in this forum you refuse to deal with the questions that raises. Further homework for stuff that depends on those dubious claims is a waste of my time.

The only reason I bothered to deal with you again on the subject was your own rash insentience that you have done your part and it is everyone else's fault if they don't believe in you.
prof wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:34 am
Many critics say a Science of Ethics is impossible, but they fail to define their terms nor do they attempt to understand where the scientific Ethicists are coming from: how they employ their terminology, what motivates them
The seminars sound like standard self-help study groups. If you are peddling ethical intuitions as a formal science there, then they aren't that great and there's not much more to say about them. I suppose it is a good use of a Saturday afternoon for the sort of person who is otherwise likely to end up at a seminar for multi level marketing instead.

prof
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by prof » Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:06 am

DP

What do you understand by "objectivity"? Is your meaning for it the same as Jurgen Habermas's?

Also, it would help the readers here if you would tell us how you define "ethics" and also "science."


For it is obvious that our definitions of "Ethics" differ, although I suspect you pretty-much concur with the explication of "science" which I offered in Chapter 5 of ETHICS: A College Course. See: http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... Course.pdf
See p. 20.

In that same booklet, I defined "Ethics" on pp. 26-27 of Ch. Six.


Everyone: Your questions and comments are welcome!

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1033
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:13 pm

I am ok with that description of what a science is. Obviously up until the part where you write... "The Science of Value" which is where it all falls apart again.

Then there's the bit where you write ... "Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Medicine, and Ethics are hypothetico-deductive disciplines employing induction along with deduction." There's an odd man out in that collection, the interloper is of course ethics. There's really no reason if you are going to insert that into the list that I can't insert Art to go along with it and that can be a science now too.

Frankly the bit about engineering being the relative end of absolute science is not at all convincing either. Just as there is a difference between medical practice and medical science in both methods and intent, so there surely is between physics as investigation and engineering as application. Otherwise your car mechanic is now a scientist and so is, ultimately, almost anybody who does almost anything. If I write a powershell script to loop through all the email boxes in a server and change their addresses I don't call myself a computer scientist for that, I'm just an IT engineer.

Whatever ethics is, it must include evaluation of actions and some form of determination about right and wrong. A choice a person makes can be ethical or otherwise, good or bad. It's thorny stuff, so it is very hard to find a good rationale for making final judgments. That doesn't mean you can just pick something else, call it 'ethics' and fix the problem nice and neatly.

Your definition doesn't work because I-value and S-value are nonsense. You have pinched a concept that probably works in some distant field and transposed it into a situation where it makes no sense.

There is no way to count any of the properties of the objects under investigation unless you abandon method as impossible and switch to feelings - which is necessarily subjective. Before you can apply your count, which is supposed to provide public guidance for an evaluation, somebody must already have made a private evaluation... which determines the output and therefore invalidates the public nature of the finding.

Objective data is publicly verifiable. Subjective data is not. Your dataset, if you ever even work out what that might look like in real life (highly doubtful because you will never secure agreement with others), is doomed to be entirely subjective because you are fooling yourself from the beginning in ways that are rather easy to see if you only let the scales fall from your eyes.

You simply cannot get a science that "observes and measures the world. From those data it infers the empirical laws " using data that is cribbed from opinion. And you cannot get to ANY of the I E or S values without that value being a matter of opinion.

That can't be controversial, it is entailed in your own comment "It's not how many properties x has; focus instead on how many properties x is conceived to have!". If you were working with the fundamentals of a real science, you could never have written that about it.

prof
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by prof » Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:57 am

This thread is about the Community Values seminars. They are devised to arrive at a consensus as to what are the values of a specific community; a cross-section of that community {village, town, municipality} are invited to the seminar which then functions much like a Focus Group, or a consensus-building Warren Avis group. They are experiments in how to deepen one's awareness of, and commitment to, ethical values.

You wrote about these seminars:
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:16 am
The seminars sound like standard self-help study groups. If you are peddling ethical intuitions as a formal science there, then they aren't that great and there's not much more to say about them. I suppose it is a good use of a Saturday afternoon for the sort of person who is otherwise likely to end up at a seminar for multi level marketing instead.
My comment on what you said is this: - considering how you informed us that everything has infinite properties (in the sense that the more you look the more you will find), you sure stopped counting [and listing] the properties of these gatherings soon!!

This is a reflection of how meaningful (i.e., valuable) you judged these seminars to be. You were evaluating them Systemically. ...whereas you could hasve valued them Intrinsically.

Don't try to tell us these Dimension of Value are useless and are just "nonsense" or "'rubbish'"...to use your sophisticated philosophical vocabulary.

Read original sources - such as:
https://www.hartmaninstitute.org/axiologyasascience/

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1033
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:58 pm

You seem to be losing your self control Prof. The dimensions of value are just completely made up and simply squealing that they are super super super true won't change anything.

Axiology isn't a science, for the same reasons as the other stuff you are peddling. Hartman may be a less muddled author than you are, but the slight improvement in prose does nothing to cover the dire logical mishaps with which it is littered, and which you have already lifted. Thus I have already addressed the most prominent, and I feel little compulsion to read all the same mistakes again just to compile a longer list, given that you are not dealing very well with the smattering already presented.

I was entirely clear from the start what it was in your opening post I found objectionable, namely the part I quoted and addressed. I have never pretended to have any interest in the community college coffee afternoons on the other side of an ocean that you are promoting.

Shall I assume that now you have run out of ideas and are resorting to petulance, you will now be ceasing this thread on the basis that for your purposes it is off topic, but only to start another one with all the same boasting about nobody being clear in their objections to your claims of science soon?

prof
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by prof » Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:28 pm

Listen up, folks!

There cannot be a Science of Ethics because Pants says so. And he persistently says so dogmatically and emphatically.

They say it's impossible.

Doing the possible may be fun.

Doing the "impossible" is more fun.

Pants is unaware of the measures that transform subjective reports into objective, exact statistical scores. He also totally misses the point about how invested people are in seeking any more properties in what they evaluate or judge; how they break off at some point the number of features they require in order to judge something (or someone) as "good."

Compare my humble scribbles [[in the documents to which I offered links to my ethical theory, the new paradigm for Ethics] to what his ethical theory is as given in this quote from him when I asked him what "Ethics" is, iviz,. how he defines it:

"it (Ethics) must include evaluation of actions and some form of determination about right and wrong. A choice a person makes can be ethical or otherwise, good or bad. It's thorny stuff, so it is very hard to find a good rationale"

Then make up your own mind.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1033
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:44 am

prof wrote:
Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:28 pm
He also totally misses the point about how invested people are in seeking any more properties in what they evaluate or judge; how they break off at some point the number of features they require in order to judge something (or someone) as "good."
That's just a multiplication of subjective evaluations. There's no way for you to get objectivity from such material, and it's weird that you are still trying.

Your last few posts have amounted to nothing better than a series of escalating tantrums. This isn't impressive, you are getting needy and pathetic.

Also, who do you thing you are fooling with the appeals to a wider public to compare our positions? Nobody is reading this thread just as nobody reads the amateurish word documents you are linking to. I am the closest thing you have to an actual audience, and you put no effort into this relationship.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest