An axiomatic approach to living well and better relationships

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: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

An axiomatic approach to living well and better relationships

Post by prof »

“Be ashamed to die until you have won a victory for humanity.”
---------Horace Mann (1796-1859)
He is speaking here poetically, saying to us: do something to help the world improve. You will then have made a difference; your life will not have been in vain. At the same time though, as an educator he very much believed in self-improvement for all. Individual Ethics and Social Ethics are compatible studies; both are equally important and will get equal emphasis in the following theory, with its many implications for living a trouble-free, harmonious life.

I will leave it to you, dear Readers, to figure out some of the deductions and implications that follow from these postulates; and to visualize the kind of world we would have if this ethical system were taught in classrooms wherever on this planet there is literacy, or there are people of intelligence.

Definition One: When an individual is Intrinsically-valued one has entered the field of Ethics, for Ethics may be defined as: the Intrinsic valuation of an individual, or a group of them. [It s a perspective on individuals which was explained at some length in Katz – BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach (2014) http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz ]

Axiom (I) An ethical individual wants to make things morally better and approves of, and endorses it when conditions are made better.

Implied imperative: Make yourself better! - Make things better!


Axiom (II): The ultimate goal for Ethics is to provide a quality life for all.

Implied imperative: Work for Social Justice.

Optimal living, well-being, is enhanced by peace both within the individual and in the world in which s/he lives. Be aware that without justice there is no peace. By their nature most human beings have a capacity to detect, and to disapprove of, injustice. At every opportunity ask yourself how you can add value to the situation.

Axiom (III): The more the individual improves, the more the world which we inhabit becomes a better place in which to live; and the more the world improves (becomes more peaceful, cooperative, and full of people feeling good will toward each other) the better off is the individual who lives in that world.

Definition Two: “Morality” in this paradigm will mean: self being true to true self. It implies authenticity, honesty, and transparency. When the self-image (the self-ideal) of an individual contains some moral principles and it matches, to some measurable degree, the conduct of that individual (the actual observable self), then to that degree we may accurately speak of that person as moral.

Morality is a very dynamic concept, for it can grow in at least two ways: One may add more moral principles to one’s self-ideal; and one may more-and-more live up to those high ideals. Thus “morality” may be also understood as: “increasing correspondence with an improving self-ideal.” As the actual self better approximates the ideal Self, morality is the measure. Morality is self-motivated - it is our guide to a better life, health, happiness. Moral principles are not rules; they are merely guidelines to a more-comfortable, more-trouble-free life.

An ethical person would not have fun, nor ‘get ahead,’ at the expense of others. Furthermore, in an effort to make things better, ethical persons would have this attitude: “We care about people and our planet; and we want to share our good fortune with those who need a helping hand. Also we will do whatever we can to increase upward social mobility.” Such a view could well be part of a moral self-image possessed by a person of good character.

Theorem 1. Do no harm.

This follows from Definition 1, for if human life is valuable, if an individual is, as Ethics requires, uncountably valuable - then it is irrational and counterproductive to deliberately cause that person harm. Be mindful that harm or abuse can be both psychological and physical. When something is done to hurt others, whether it is ridicule, bullying, or what is called “collateral damage,” value is lost. As we go toward zero-value we are going in the direction of inertness, apathy, and death. In contrast, as we go toward more positive value (as we add more properties, enrich the concept) we are going in the direction of life …of life more abundant.

Implied imperative: Work to alleviate and reduce human suffering.

Axiom (IV): Each of us has a moral obligation to be morally good, to be happy, and to dispel unhappiness.

Note that ants, tigers, and anteaters have brains, albeit somewhat primitive. Normal human beings, however, have developed a functioning cerebral cortex in the frontal lobes of their brains. The primitive brain, the amygdala, tells us to over-eat us and to have frequent and indiscriminate sex, while the cerebral cortex tells us it is not wise to over-indulge – that it is not in our best interest. That is our mind working for us.

Implied imperative: Be mindful :!:

Becoming the best possible person facilitates our living the best- possible life, and living an ethical life enables us to become the best we can be. Living a healthy, flourishing life on an ongoing basis necessitates our possessing a good character. [Note the section devoted to this topic which provides further details as to what this entails. See pp.7-8 in: Katz - LIVING WELL: how ethics helps us flourish - http://tinyurl.com/nrnb4t4 ]

Becoming an early adopter of this new paradigm for ethical theory and practice will make you wise. Do you want to be? Do you want to take part in this paradigm shift?

Your comments are welcome !
User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: An axiomatic approach to living well and better relationships

Post by Bill Wiltrack »

.





What is your most useful axiomatic approach to living well and better relationships?


...and how do you implement your axioms in your everyday life? Specific examples.








.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: An axiomatic approach to living well and better relationships

Post by prof »

Thank you for your comments, Bill.

I don't understand your first question. Would you please clarify? The package is to be taken as a whole. The system of Ethics is useful when put to use.

In everyday life if I hear a put-down directed at me, perceive some disrespect, or what I consider to be either irrelevant, undesirable, rude remarks, I do not respond or react; and I do ask myself: If this possibly could apply to me, what can I learn from it to improve myself?

Whenever I encounter another human being , internally I feel good-will, externally I express good wishes, and/or offer a sincere compliment, I ask myself: How can I add positive value to this situation? How can all involved come out as winners? How can I lift up somebody's spirits? How can I use my time most valuably?

When I am alone, I seek to develop my capacities, add skill, or do something constructive for someone else. I will do what I can to help out a neighbor, or someone in neeed.

Today I shall take time out from my chores, and responsibilities as a volunteer condo Director, to phone a social worker with regard to a 95-year-old woman in a rehab home, to ask if new batteries cana be installed in her hearing aids. She was my next-door neighbor for many years. Her hearing deteriorated. Then her eyes got weak. Her memory often fails here. Finally, her kidneys broke down after many years of abuse due to ignorance about what to eat.


....Does this speak to your question?
User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: An axiomatic approach to living well and better relationships

Post by Bill Wiltrack »

.




...............................................................
You sound as if you have a good heart.




.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: An axiomatic approach to living well and better relationships

Post by prof »

Thank you.


And so do you.

We need to care about each other. We need to practice being happy.


Have you noticed that happy people do not become terrorists, or whiners, or those feeling like victims?

We need to find ways of facilitating upward social mobility. This applies to all of us: Be a do-er not just a talker. Get something worthwhile done !!!!


It is suggested that you read over the whole original post.

Then - if you will be so kind - tell us your impressions of it as a body of related concepts.


The set (of related, interacting, axioms and definitions) offers a frame-of-reference to which other points from the history of ethics can be meaningfully attached. As I see it, this is the start of A Science of Ethics.

What say you?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6335
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: An axiomatic approach to living well and better relationships

Post by FlashDangerpants »

prof wrote:tell us your impressions of it as a body of related concepts.
It needs a lot of refinement before we could describe them as a set of related concepts, let alone a 'new paradigm for ethical theory'. It starts with a bumper sticker, and then moves on to a series of axioms and theorems that don't follow from each, nor do they actually say enough for anything to be usefully derived from any of them.

It sort of amounts to ... Axiom: A cat is nice when it is being fluffy, and nasty when it is clawing your face. Theorem: So make your life fluffy like the kitten, not pointy like its claws.

That applies throughout I'm afraid. For an example though:
"Axiom (I) An ethical individual wants to make things morally better and approves of, and endorses it when conditions are made better.
Implied imperative: Make yourself better! - Make things better! "


The imperative is not implied by the preceding statement. The requirement to make things better not worse is just obvious, without having to be derived from anything.

Likewise, working for social justice, without some interesting definition of what makes society more 'just' doesn't answer any questions about ethics at all.
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: An axiomatic approach to living well and better relationships

Post by Dalek Prime »

It's more ethical not to breed.

Happy new year prof.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: An axiomatic approach to living well and better relationships

Post by prof »

FlashDangerpants wrote:
prof wrote:tell us your impressions of it as a body of related concepts.
1) It needs a lot of refinement before we could describe them as a set of related concepts...
2). It ... moves on to a series of axioms and theorems that don't follow from each, nor do they actually say enough for anything to be usefully derived from any of them.
.3) For an example though:
"Axiom (I) An ethical individual wants to make things morally better and approves of, and endorses it when conditions are made better.
Implied imperative: Make yourself better! - Make things better! "

The imperative is not implied by the preceding statement. The requirement to make things better not worse is just obvious, without having to be derived from anything.
4) Likewise, working for social justice, without some interesting definition of what makes society more 'just' doesn't answer any questions about ethics at all.
[numbering added]

Hi, Flash

Thank you for responding ! And thank you for giving the set of axioms your consideration. I appreciate your taking the time to look into this, and I appreciate you.

I took the liberty of numbering your points in the quote above. I'll take up each point, one at a time.

1) I agree. Further work is required. However, I assumed that if one was interested enough in this paradigm's perspective on ethics, one would click on one of the reference links, or read my previous threads here, and discover a more-extensive expansion on the model and its vast implications.

Of course in one post, such as the o.p. - which some would consider already too long to bother studying - I am not going to tie together all loose ends, or apply it to every aspect of ethics. I didn't even offer examples, for I thought 3 letter-size pages were enough to cram in. So, yes, there was a link to LIVING WELL (which has a Bibliography) and a link to BASIC ETHICS which would fill out the picture as to where the model might take us with regard to political behavior, to family relationships, to societal justice, etc. Check out the selections in that Bibliography to get answers (albeit tentative ones) to your concerns.

2) Look up in a dictionary the word "axiom." Axioms aren't meant to follow from each other. [Recall Euclid's axioms from your acquaintance with Plane Geometry.] The ones I offered here say plenty enough for lots of useful concepts to be derived from them; so you may want to reconsider that judgment until after you have read more of the papers, essays, brochures, or booklets produced by M. C. Katz, inspired by the genius-philosopher Robert S. Hartman, who you can read about on Wiki. Those papers and brochures explain more deeply, and connect the dots.

3) When Axiom (I) is put into imperative form it reads: [If you want to be ethical, you will] make things better !! Then what follows from that is [This includes]: Make yourself better :!: - For more details, see viewtopic.php?f=8&t=13302
I cannot agree that everyone finds either of these imperatives to be obvious; far too many do not.

4) For an interesting description of what makes society more "just" see pp. 8-12, "On Justice" in the essay, Ethical Adventures. Here is a link to it: http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... NTURES.pdf

Let's continue the dialog. {Dig a littler deeper - if you wish - by opening a link, and doing some enjoyable reading.} I look forward to discussing Ethics with you further.....


Did you ever peruse an earlier attempt to amplify some of the Ethical concepts, such as the difference between 'optimism' and 'realism.' See LIVING THE GOOD LIFE http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... _Lifef.pdf

.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6335
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: An axiomatic approach to living well and better relationships

Post by FlashDangerpants »

prof wrote: 3) When Axiom (I) is put into imperative form it reads: [If you want to be ethical, you will] make things better !! Then what follows from that is [This includes]: Make yourself better :!: - For more details, see viewtopic.php?f=8&t=13302
I cannot agree that everyone finds either of these imperatives to be obvious; far too many do not.
Who are these people that require your assistance to make the link between being good and making things better?

Perhaps they will benefit also from my new axiomatic approach to not smelling of poo:
[If you want to smell nice]you will wash. And from this it follows that [you will not] wash with poo.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: An axiomatic approach to living well and better relationships

Post by prof »

Their is some kind of misunderstanding here.

This is not for people who need "ur assistance to make the link between being good and making things better."

This is for how good people can become even more so, and be more effective, by teaching values, especially ethical values, to the new upcoming generation. First, we have to have a clear understanding ourselves. And that is what the new Ethical Theory delivers. Hence it is advised that one brush up on it by doing a little-more-intensive study.


Let's continue the discussion.

{Isn't it just like a arofessor to assign homework 8)] -

:wink: We can't help it.
Walker
Posts: 14370
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: An axiomatic approach to living well and better relationships

Post by Walker »

What say you?

I say it’s very simple, prof.

Only speak truth.

Causes for shame (OP) are then dramatically reduced, with no effort.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6335
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: An axiomatic approach to living well and better relationships

Post by FlashDangerpants »

prof wrote:Their is some kind of misunderstanding here.

This is not for people who need "ur assistance to make the link between being good and making things better."

This is for how good people can become even more so, and be more effective, by teaching values, especially ethical values, to the new upcoming generation. First, we have to have a clear understanding ourselves. And that is what the new Ethical Theory delivers. Hence it is advised that one brush up on it by doing a little-more-intensive study.


Let's continue the discussion.

{Isn't it just like a arofessor to assign homework 8)] -

:wink: We can't help it.
That doesn't really make sense. If the people are already good, they already must know that making things better is the basis of doing good. So they already know that if they wish to be good they must make things better.

If these good people are unaware that making things worse is an unreliable way of making things better, then they aren't very likely to correctly interpret your other imperative that they must "be mindful". Must you condense that one down to 'being mindful requires us not to be unmindful'?
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: An axiomatic approach to living well and better relationships

Post by prof »

FlashDangerpants wrote:
prof wrote:
...This is for how good people can become even more so, and be more effective, by teaching values, especially ethical values, to the new upcoming generation. First, we have to have a clear understanding ourselves. And that is what the new Ethical Theory delivers. Hence it is advised that one brush up on it by doing a little-more-intensive study.


Let's continue the discussion.




.... Must you condense that one down to 'being mindful requires us not to be unmindful'?
Spoken like a true Philosopher :wink: :wink:

Seriously,, and with sincere respect: Perhaps, Flash, you might rephrase this question to make it clearer, for I didn't quite grasp it.
Btw, did you look at any of the links yet, to get a bit of the background thinking behind the axiom-set? Were any worthwhile points learned? Does it have anything to offer?

See especially the last five posts on page 1 and the references on page 2, HERE: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=17816

An implication of 'Do no harm' is: Don't do to someone else what you wouldn't want them to do to you.
Here we recognize a form of a very ancient, and virtually-universal, precept known as "The Golden Rule." We see, thus, that this radically-new paradigm shift has within it the potential to generate a traditional concept from the history of ideas in Moral Philosophy.

It also points to this Applied Ethics concept: Now that robots programmed with Generalized Artificial Intelligence are - or will soon be - taking over, and doing all the jobs, a better solution than A Minimum Basic Guaranteed Annual Income grant for everyone will be [- if we could ever elect a Congress in the U.S.A. willing to even consider passing it -] setting up agencies that in an organized manner will ask all applicants what their talents and interests are, test their capacities and native gifts and aptitudes, and then give them work to do and pay them a (minimum) living wage {much like the federal Works Progress Administration under F.D.R. did} so that they 'earn' their income by their artistic expression, such as painting, stand-up comedy, or story-telling, etc., or by some other line of work that has some value to society.

This proposal rejects freeloading; it is a more-ethical solution which they system offers rather than a mere handout for staying home and playing their own solitaire games; or watching TV.


Your opinions??
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6335
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: An axiomatic approach to living well and better relationships

Post by FlashDangerpants »

prof wrote: It also points to this Applied Ethics concept: Now that robots programmed with Generalized Artificial Intelligence are - or will soon be - taking over, and doing all the jobs, a better solution than A Minimum Basic Guaranteed Annual Income grant for everyone will be [- if we could ever elect a Congress in the U.S.A. willing to even consider passing it -] setting up agencies that in an organized manner will ask all applicants what their talents and interests are, test their capacities and native gifts and aptitudes, and then give them work to do and pay them a (minimum) living wage {much like the federal Works Progress Administration under F.D.R. did} so that they 'earn' their income by their artistic expression, such as painting, stand-up comedy, or story-telling, etc., or by some other line of work that has some value to society.

This proposal rejects freeloading; it is a more-ethical solution which they system offers rather than a mere handout for staying home and playing their own solitaire games; or watching TV.


Your opinions??
Erm, so an example of the clarity and value that your new paradigm offers is...

People who are by rights autonomous and have their own desires and ambitions, explain those purposes to you. And then you decide what they should do because you know better than they do. They might say they want to be a stand up comedian, but you decide that society has enough of those, and they aren't that funny anyway, so you tell them to be a robot repair man. This is ok because you gave them your fully mindful total attention while you prepared their allotted place in your Utopia.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: An axiomatic approach to living well and better relationships

Post by prof »

Greetings, Flash

In 7 years from now, or less, GAI will be a practical reality. Domestic robots will be programmed with it. People will get accustomed to having them around - like they might have a Roomba now. Commercially robotics will be used to do every single kind of work that people do nowadays, even including nursing and home health care.

I sense a total misunderstanding about the solution I proposed to the problem: "Where are the jobs???!!!" It is not me who will decide the profession folks will pursue, but the individuals themselves. The point being made was that the government will pay them for work, rather than for idleness.

Since the Science of Ethics respects human dignity, and to maintain their self-respect most people would prefer to work, rather than merely lounge around, since work makes life more meaningful - I was suggesting (a perhaps more-acceptable) improvement than the proposal of Richard Nixon, early in his first term, to give everyone an automatic small grant of cash. This bill was defeated by his fellow Republicans in the Senate.
No recipient would have called that "a living wage" anyway.

Some solution will have to be found when all the work is done by robots. Not everyone is the entrepreneur type.


Maybe one of you out there has a better solution. I would like to hear it.
Post Reply