On having a good character - a new way of looking at Ethics

[prof]

Wide agreement can be seen on the claim that if one has a good character, all else being equal, one will tend to perform worthwhile actions; will tend to “do the right thing.” This is an emphasis of Virtue Ethics.
Being good (by definition and observation) may result in doing good but not necessarily the other way around: even criminals may sometimes do something good; but of course cannot accurately be described as having a good character.

Furthermore, if one has a good character one will be likely to keep one’s promises, will honor one’s contracts, fulfill one’s obligations, be responsible, do one’s duty. That sort of conduct is what Deontologists advocate.

A person of good character will adhere to ethical principles – such as those offered at the end of the paper by M.C. Katz – Aspects of Ethics; or those offered in the final chapter of Ethics for the 21st Century: Keys to the good life -- or at least will strive to do so. S/he realizes however that there are no moral absolutes. Ethical science, in common with other sciences, does not deal in absolutes.

Consequentialists say we should abstain from certain activities because undesirable effects will result. That they say is the reason why we should not murder, rape, kidnap, steal, or cheat. Many of this school hold that some outcomes, such as the greatest happiness for the most folks, are more desirable than others.

Does this happiness criterion establish – as they claim it does – outcomes that can be identified as objectively desirable? John Stuart Mill would argue that it is not only the number of people who experience the happiness but also the duration of the happiness must be considered. Also the quality of it matters: was it derived by pursuing, and coming close to reaching, a worthwhile goal? Such a goal, one of high value, would contribute to the end of helping each individual flourish, would enhance individual well-being.

Thus we see there need not be any conflict between the three most-dominant contemporary normative ethical theories, i.e., character ethics, action-outcome ethics, and duty ethics.

Is it not so - as Dr. M. C. Katz argues in his contemporary ethical theory is the case - that one’s actions are a reflection of one’s inner morality? He has shown, {in both his Basic Ethics: A systematic approach http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz and in the more-recent Ethics for the 21st Century essay http://www.myqol.com/wadeharveyPDFs/ETH ... ENTURY.pdf } that the three dominant normative ethical theories can be generated by an application of more basic analytical tools, i.e., the primary value dimensions of Dr. R. S. Hartman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Hartman Is it reasonable to claim that a theory that can accomplish this is superior to, and more-acceptable, than one which cannot?

Also, one of those value dimensions is used to define what the field of Ethics is. In the Hartman/Katz system, once “Intrinsic Value” is defined, Ethics itself is then defined as: the application of Intrinsic Value [In-value] to the individual, or to a group of individuals. Then the theory proceeds to define and explain “goodness,” “morality,” “integrity,” “conscience,” “hypocrisy,” “altruism,” “war,” “compassion,” “need,” “success,” “moral action,” and other relevant terms, relating them to one another.. Do you know of any other Ethical Theory that does this or is even capable of doing this?

Comments? Questions? Critiques? Evaluations?

[prof]

You or I may live a quality life, just LIVE, without thinking consciously about the following, but a scientist may find this useful:

Let's say there are x waking hours in a day; and that joy (by which I mean enjoyment, happiness, pleasure, satisfaction, delight, entertainment, amusement, sublimity, ecstasy, etc.) - joy ranges from 1 to 5 - with 5 being the most. Now, at the end of the day, after x hours have elapsed, sum up the total joy-score you experienced so far, from the beginning of the day, as you rated each hour from 1 to 5. Divide that number by x in order to find your max-joy score.

Did you attain the maximum joy-per-day possible? And do you realize - are you aware - that every opportunity for service to others is a potential source of joy? Ethics, the science, does not recommend that one be a martyr. Yet there is a satisfaction in knowing that you have been really helpful to someone, and thus have made a difference. You did not live in vain.

And are you aware that if you have more years in your life your max-joy score can get larger? And if you deliberately aim for health, and for what makes us healthy, your chances of living longer are increased; isn't that true? And if you share, your score goes up. If you work to find common ground you raise your score.

Comments?

[prof]

You must admit this is a new approach to ethics.

It implies that it is good to be happy all day long, even though one knows this goal likely will not be reached but that one might as well aim for it.

One of the very best ways to be happy is to make someone else happy. Also one attains happiness by feeling that one is actually getting to a long-sought-after worthwhile goal. If at the outset you set for yourself a worthwhile goal that enhances the life of others (your support group) then you are being ethical.

An earlier post showed why it is the case that the support group for each of us is the entire human race.

In conclusion, the ideal aim for an individual (as well as for a social group) is to maximize positive value throughout life, to gain joy by harmonious human relations, to survive and to flourish for as long as possible.

Naturally, one (aware of this) would push for economic/political policies that bring this aim closer to realization.

Comments?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.






If one strives to be happy all the time odds are addiction will follow.


One should strive just to experience ones reality.





................................................








.

[prof]

If one strives to be happy all the time odds are addiction will follow.

One should strive just to experience ones reality.

Yes, Bill, you are right.

Note that I did not advocate that we "strive to be happy." What I did write was "it is good to be happy all day long, even though one knows this goal likely will not be reached..." Many folks who are moody would declare the concept of 'being happy all day' as ridiculous.

What some people do, as a technique, is to form the habit of each morning when they arise they affirm with determination: "I'm going to be happy today !!" It doesn't always turn out that way, but it might work at least for a few minutes after they said it.

There are other happiness 'tricks' such as writing down a blessing that one perceives to have just occurred on a little strip of paper; and saving it, along with other such strips, in a "Happiness Jar," to be read later in the day (when one might be feeling sad.)

[prof]

If one does not maintain a harmony with one’s surroundings, one is constantly threatened and thus not achieving the highest hope-fulfillment that would be attained if one lived in harmony; and thus one could not then experience the highest degree of joy.

What are the implications of this for Political Science? Let us strive to achieve transparency in administration at all levels of government all the time, for, to quote a wise political scientist: "As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated." Let open meetings be the rule rather than the exception. In a democracy what is there to hide. We need not look upon others as our "enemy." Instead we can define each of them as "a fellow human being, vulnerable and capable of suffering, misguided in some ways."

We are all prone to exaggeration, conclusion-leaping, fumbling, making stupid mistakes - perhaps a touch of paranoia. Until we kill the ego, we are defensive of it. Once we gain true humility we are no longer defensive/offensive....we see no need "to go to war." We don't want to commit harm. We renounce violence.

Furthermore, once we become wise, we will then agree with the quotation,
"The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living."
This profound insight conveys the thought that cooperation is central to ethical living, to living an ethical life.

Comments? Questions? Critiques? Evaluations?

[prof]

With regard to Ethics I'd like to mention a couple of implications of living the Ethical life. This is addressed to anyone who considers himself or herself to be somewhat ethical.

The first is this: You, an ethical individual, a person of good character, will press for the right policies -- those which embody Ethical principles -- and, secondly, you will actively engage in Self-improvement, as a way of implementing and realizing Morality (self being true to true Self.) If you want to be moral, you are aware that you need to be continually improving; you need to aim for excellence in whatever projects you are pursuing; you shall aim to have your conduct and character match - to a better and better approximation - the highest vision of what a human being might be. You are engaged in a process of becoming more ethical.

I mentioned earlier the concept of policies which express Ethics; now I shall get specific by giving some examples. I was referring to policies such as: free education through the senior college level; a Peace Department in your nation's federal government along with a cabinet Secretary of Peace who gives advice to the president; a requirement that millionaires and billionaires pay into the social security fund, and be entitled to collect a monthly check from it if they so wish; paid family-leave benefits; paid vacation time for low-level-job workers; updated maintenance of infrastructure at a quality level; equal pay for equal work, no matter age or gender; broadband and free internet access in all parts of the nation's territory; complete transparency at all levels of government, especially for Congress or parliament; low-cost mixed housing for every city and suburb; rapid implementation of clean, green, decentralized energy; etc.


Comments? Questions?

[JSS]

You or I may live a quality life, just LIVE, without thinking consciously about the following, but a scientist may find this useful:

Let's say there are x waking hours in a day; and that joy (by which I mean enjoyment, happiness, pleasure, satisfaction, delight, entertainment, amusement, sublimity, ecstasy, etc.) - joy ranges from 1 to 5 - with 5 being the most. Now, at the end of the day, after x hours have elapsed, sum up the total joy-score you experienced so far, from the beginning of the day, as you rated each hour from 1 to 5. Divide that number by x in order to find your max-joy score.

Did you attain the maximum joy-per-day possible? And do you realize - are you aware - that every opportunity for service to others is a potential source of joy? Ethics, the science, does not recommend that one be a martyr. Yet there is a satisfaction in knowing that you have been really helpful to someone, and thus have made a difference. You did not live in vain.

And are you aware that if you have more years in your life your max-joy score can get larger? And if you deliberately aim for health, and for what makes us healthy, your chances of living longer are increased; isn't that true? And if you share, your score goes up. If you work to find common ground you raise your score.

Comments?

Sounds like a great exercise.
...should have thought of it myself.

[Walker]

Hi prof,

Being good (by definition and observation) may result in doing good but not necessarily the other way around: even criminals may sometimes do something good; but of course cannot accurately be described as having a good character.

If not good character by good acts alone, then what else is required … faith-based redemption?

Thus we see there need not be any conflict between the three most-dominant contemporary normative ethical theories, i.e., character ethics, action-outcome ethics, and duty ethics.

If not good character by good acts alone, then the above definition of character conflicts with action-outcome ethics (since the definition says that character is not determined by action ethics).

[Harbal]

Yes, Bill, you are right.

If he's right it must be by accident.

[prof]

Harbal,


...with all due respect

Curiosity Question:
Do you agree that this is a Philosophy site?

Is that contribution you just wrote: good philosophy?


And, is this an Ethics forum?

If so, is what you wrote ethical? ....by which Ethical Theory?


The theme of this thread is: having a good character. Would you apply that description to yourself??

{Probably one's humility would prevent one from doing that.}

[Harbal]

Do you agree that this is a Philosophy site?

Yes.

Is that contribution you just wrote: good philosophy?

It was a conclusion I arrived at by employing sound philosophical methods.

And, is this an Ethics forum?

Yes.

If so, is what you wrote ethical?

I thought the forum was for discussing ethics rather than practising them.

The theme of this thread is: having a good character. Would you apply that description to yourself??

I do have a tendency to give in to temptation, I suppose you could call that a character flaw.

[prof]

I thought the forum was for discussing ethics rather than practising them.

What's the point of discussing ethics?


What good is a theory of ethics if it is not applied?

Can the system of ethics which Dr. M.C. Katz teaches be applied? Does it lend itself to application? {For a bibliography see pp. 22-23 here: http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf }

What are those norms, explained on p. 19, in the pamphlet titled BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach, http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf which are designated "Obligatory Norms" - and what does that mean?

Do you believe a good Ethical Theory should be applicable to life?

[Harbal]

What's the point of discussing ethics?

I don't think I was discussing ethics, I think I was being what some of you call " off topic". But, seeing as you ask, I suppose discussing ethics helps to drive the moral evolution of society.

Can the system of ethics which Dr. M.C. Katz teaches be applied? Does it lend itself to application?

I don't know, I've not read it.

What are those norms, explained on p. 19, in the pamphlet titled BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach,

Refer to previous answer.

Do you believe a good Ethical Theory should be applicable to life?

There seems little point in applying a bad one.

[Obvious Leo]

Do you believe a good Ethical Theory should be applicable to life?

There seems little point in applying a bad one.

1. How would one be able to tell the difference?

2. If such a difference existed would it be universally applicable?