Moral Health

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

Re: Moral Health

Post by prof »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Acting against your own interest can be ethical
Do others here agree with the above quote :?:

In looking for ways to make Hobbes right, I recalled that once, in my manual, ETHICS: A College Course, I defined a word as another manifestation of Intrinsic Value. That concept was an example of extreme self-sacrifice. The word was "heroism." The example I used to illustrate the concept was an individual pushing a child out of the path of an oncoming vehicle, managing to save the child from danger but in the process getting killed by the moving vehicle. Surviving was in that person's self-interest; rescuing the toddler was ethical. S/he acted against self-interest in that act of heroism. Perhaps that is what Hobbes had in mind when he wrote the above quote.

Incidentally, I might call attention to the fact that I'm not a Cultural Relativist, ethically speaking; in other words, I do not hold the position - as, on the contrary, Hobbes seems to believe - that the practices of all cultures are equally morally valid. Cultures that hold slaves, or that practice cannibalism are not morally healthy according to the science of Ethics.

Nor do I believe that the U.S.A. is exceptional when it comes to generosity, civility, and liberty. Yes, other nations are less flexible, with less internal variations, and thus could be labelled 'rigid.'

And it is worth noting that I am certainly NOT a moralist; rather, I am a scientist. I study patterns, relationships, connectivity and draw tentative conclusions from the factual data. I have made hypothetical suggestions as to how to live, in the form: If you want a QL, then do this ... (where QL stands for "Quality Life.") There was nothing absolutistic about it. Each suggestion is subject to modification when new facts are discovered. Each 'moral principle' offered is a testable hypothesis subject to replication and to either disproof or added verification.

It's not about me. It's about sharpening up our understanding of Ethics, and having a theory that explains how people think about moral matters as they do, why some become hitmen, some become con artists, some enjoy manipulating others, feeling superior. Some feel very compassionate toward animals and feel a strong kinship. All of it can be analyzed and reduced to simple laws ...the laws of human nature. And these can be shown to be special cases of Natural Laws. So let's get busy and work it out.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Moral Health

Post by prof »

prof wrote: I study patterns, relationships, connectivity and draw tentative conclusions from the factual data. ... It's about sharpening up our understanding of Ethics, and having a theory that explains how people think about moral matters as they do, why some become hitmen, some become con artists, some enjoy manipulating others, feeling superior. Some feel very compassionate toward animals and feel a strong kinship. All of it can be analyzed and reduced to simple laws ...the laws of human nature. And these can be shown to be special cases of Natural Laws. So let's get busy and work it out.
In keeping with what is written above, I would recommend the viewing of this You Tube interview of Rebecca Costa in 2010 where highly-relevant topics are discussed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb972lp7fH8

Also witness her other interviews regarding the content of her book, The Watchman's Rattle. She is alerting us about the downfall and collapse of The American Empire, what's causing it, and a strategy to prevent it, before it takes the whole world down with it.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Moral Health

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

prof wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Acting against your own interest can be ethical
Do others here agree with the above quote :?:.

An employer might be encouraged against his own interests to increase the wages and working conditions of his staff. His action might be ethical , but more in his interests to pay as little as possible and and with the minimal costs for safe working practices.

It does not take much imagination to think of many many more.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Moral Health

Post by Terrapin Station »

prof wrote:Careful readers noted that A was defined (in context) as Sally's belief that A "is the best course of action", ("all things considered.") The issue at hand is why do some choose what they believe is the 'worse course of action'?
I don't believe that people do this. Again, what I believe is going on in the situations being interpreted that way is rather "that one chooses an existentially authentic action rather than a socially-pressured action. The aim is to not feel guilty or anxious about bucking social pressures."

The existentially authentic actions in the relevant cases are contrary to what's been socially pressured, which results in guilt for folks who have a strong conformist, other-pleasing-at-expense-of-my-own-desires bent, so the existentially authentic decisions are being interpreted as "worse" decisions rather than as what that particular individual feels (in an endorsing way) in that situation at that time.

(Of course, another option is that a decision is simply not the one that you'd make, and you're projecting your views onto them, so that insofar as someone doesn't match your opinion, they're making a "worse" choice.)
Are the concepts offered relevant to a sound ethical theory?
In light of you meaning "How we should behave" by "ethical theory" rather than meaning metaethical theory, there can be no sound ethical theory, because that would require true statements, but there can be no true statements to the effect of how we should act.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Moral Health

Post by prof »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:For moral health that are many impulses that are best not controlled.
Greetings, Hobbes

Would you be so kind as to give us some examples of these impulses.

In another post, recently, I explained that impulsive behavior is usually oriented in the short term. When we act impulsively we fail to take long-term interests into consideration.

~~~~~~~~

Also, you write: "An employer might be encouraged against his own interests to increase the wages and working conditions of his staff. " [emphasis added]

I find this to be confusing: you present us with a case where the employer does the ethical thing. Isn't it so that if more and more employers do this, act ethically, the benefits that ensue to the entire community provide everyone in that area with a better life?

Study after study has shown that when workers get that kind of attention they tend to be more productive. If they feel grateful, glad to be in such a company, the work atmosphere is improved, and everyone associated with the business is happier ....so it was in the employer's interest after all !

As the old song goes, "Which side are you on? Which side are you on?" Don't you agree that if ethics spreads, it tends to make the world work for everyone while depriving no one.

Related question: If ethics is not beneficial then why are we spending our time here at a Forum on Ethics Theory???
creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Moral Health

Post by creativesoul »

The general 'flavor' of the OP is good. The idea is being put forward that it is possible for one to knowingly act in a way that is not best. I'm rejecting that notion based upon the following grounds...

Doing what is not best is to have acted upon mistaken(false) thought/belief regarding what's best(moral thought/belief). Doing what is best is to have acted upon true moral thought/belief. It is humanly impossible to knowingly hold false thought/belief. It directly follows from this that it is impossible for one to make a moral/ethical mistake on purpose. Thus, it cannot be the case that humans are capable of knowingly acting in a way that is not best. We always do what we think/believe is best at the time, even if and when that particular choice may be at odds(for whatever reason) with commonly held oughts(the collective conscience) and/or our own (general)moral thought/belief system.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

On an aside, although I do not wish to derail the thread, I'd like to comment upon something Terrapin wrote. Contrary to his/her assertion(s), it is most certainly the case that there can be and most certainly are true utterances(statements) of ought(moral statements). There are true moral statements. The simplest and easiest example to understand this matter involves focusing our attention upon the act of making a promise...

By virtue of sheer locutionary force being accompanied by meaningful consensus, when one promises to do something or other, s/he has entered into a voluntary obligation to behave in the only acceptable way(to keep their word). The act of making a promise is a series of events; hence - a state of affairs/fact. Since all morality/ethics involves what counts as acceptable/unacceptable thought/belief and/or behaviour, it makes perfect sense to realize that making a promise is prima facie example of a moral state of affairs. Given that much, since true statements are those that correspond to states of affairs(fact, reality, events, etc.), a moral statement that corresponds to making a promise would be a true one, whereas a moral statement that does not would be a false one. This is all easily enough understood. The moral utterance "There ought be a rose garden in my back yard" is true if, and only if, one has promised to plant a rose garden in your back yard, and false if and when no such promise has been made.

:mrgreen:
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Moral Health

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

prof wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:For moral health that are many impulses that are best not controlled.
Greetings, Hobbes

Would you be so kind as to give us some examples of these impulses.
Love, kindness, compassion....

Try and use your imagination, you might produce better posts on your topic, which you seem not to understand very well.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Moral Health

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

prof wrote: I find this to be confusing: you present us with a case where the employer does the ethical thing. Isn't it so that if more and more employers do this, act ethically, the benefits that ensue to the entire community provide everyone in that area with a better life?
The self interest of an employer is not the same as the interest of the community.
Most employers do not live in the community of the employed but are remote from them in many ways: socially, nationally, geographically.

There are currently more slaves on earth than at any time in human history. There are many cultural mechanisms, including social ones that ensure that any employer can justify himself as the the justness and morality of his position as exploiter.

This is planet earth.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Moral Health

Post by prof »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
prof wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:For moral health that are many impulses that are best not controlled.
Greetings, Hobbes

Would you be so kind as to give us some examples of these impulses.
Love, kindness, compassion....
Thank you, Hobbes, for your contribution.

Note, though, that if one wants to be highly morally-healthy it is preferable that one forms the habit of being loving and compassionate, and makes it a part of one's character. It can thus be a continuous feature of one's integrity rather than just occurring impulsively.

It is also preferable that before giving in to an impulse to be kind one attempts to learn if the recipient of the kindness will receive it graciously rather than find it to be an embarrassment or an inconvenience. Will the recipient mind?

Say, for example, you are planning to visit someone in a hospital or rehab facility [usually an act of kindness]; would that party object to a visit at this time? That is something to consider if one wants to be loving and considerate.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Moral Health

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

prof wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
prof wrote: Greetings, Hobbes

Would you be so kind as to give us some examples of these impulses.
Love, kindness, compassion....
Thank you, Hobbes, for your contribution.

Note, though, that if one wants to be highly morally-healthy it is preferable that one forms the habit of being loving and compassionate, and makes it a part of one's character. It can thus be a continuous feature of one's integrity rather than just occurring impulsively.
.
Says who?
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Moral Health

Post by prof »

The question has come up: "Says who?"

The concept "moral health" has been proposed by yours truly as analogous to physical health. The latter has received enormous attention lately due to there being an entire medical/industrial complex promoting it - or at least promoting the alleviation of symptoms resulting from the lack of physical health.

I conceive of "moral health" as the culmination of that which Moral Philosophy, focused on Ethics, has been groping for - when it asked such questions as: How shall I live? What is it to do the right thing? Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person? What should we do? What constitutes right and wrong? What is the "good life"?

Moral health includes flourishing, thriving, cooperating, being of service, empathy, compassion, good will, friendliness, etc. It emphasizes the personal decision to be a good person, and elucidates the value of making this a wholehearted decision.

Understanding what is entailed in being "a good person" eventually encompasses most of the topics raised in a study of ethics, theoretical and applied. Hence, from the above it is clear that character is central; developing a good character is necessary and sufficient to produce and ethical individual, one that will be a role model, exemplifying by his/her life what it means to be ethical. Keep in mind that it;s a matter of degree.

"Into every scheme for arranging the pattern of human life, it is necessary to inject a certain dose of anarchism."
-- Bertrand Russell - Sceptical Essays

"So far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain. And so far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." -- Albert Einstein - Geometry and Experience

...as quoted in Bart Kosko - Fuzzy Thinking: the new science of Fuzzy Logic. NY: Hyperion Books, 1993. This book is highly praised by George Klir, Distinguished Professor of Systems Science, SUNY at Binghamton.
See especially Ch. 14 entitled Ethics and the Social Contract.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Moral Health

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

prof wrote:The question has come up: "Says who?"

The concept "moral health" has been proposed by yours truly as analogous to physical health. The latter has received enormous attention lately due to there being an entire medical/industrial complex promoting it - or at least promoting the alleviation of symptoms resulting from the lack of physical health.

I conceive of "moral health" as the culmination of that which Moral Philosophy, focused on Ethics, has been groping for - when it asked such questions as: How shall I live? What is it to do the right thing? Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person? What should we do? What constitutes right and wrong? What is the "good life"?

Moral health includes flourishing, thriving, cooperating, being of service, empathy, compassion, good will, friendliness, etc. It emphasizes the personal decision to be a good person, and elucidates the value of making this a wholehearted decision.

Understanding what is entailed in being "a good person" eventually encompasses most of the topics raised in a study of ethics, theoretical and applied. Hence, from the above it is clear that character is central; developing a good character is necessary and sufficient to produce and ethical individual, one that will be a role model, exemplifying by his/her life what it means to be ethical. Keep in mind that it;s a matter of degree.

"Into every scheme for arranging the pattern of human life, it is necessary to inject a certain dose of anarchism."
-- Bertrand Russell - Sceptical Essays

"So far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain. And so far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." -- Albert Einstein - Geometry and Experience

...as quoted in Bart Kosko - Fuzzy Thinking: the new science of Fuzzy Logic. NY: Hyperion Books, 1993. This book is highly praised by George Klir, Distinguished Professor of Systems Science, SUNY at Binghamton.
See especially Ch. 14 entitled Ethics and the Social Contract.
My moral and mental health would require me to not listen to your mightier than thou moralistic bullshit.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Moral Health

Post by prof »

Hobbes' Choice wrote: My moral and mental health would require me to not listen to you...
So why is my thread being polluted with ad hominem attacks? Is this what passes for logical argument in philosophy?

The Hartman/Katz model for Ethical Theory, when its analysis turns to Norms, as presented in BASIC ETHICS, p. 19 - http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz
informs us that the Intrinsic norm is called by the scientists "the Obligatory Norm."

It arises when an individual takes a Facultative Norm [a material interpretation of the formal statement] seriously and very personally (when the particular facultative norm in question is: human beings ought to be sincere, truthful, empathic, of good will, cooperative, friendly.....) and one says to himself: "I intend to be that way!! I want with all my heart to be a person of good character, having those qualities mentioned. I want it intensely, and will do whatever it takes to achieve it !!!!!"

Ethics, the science, predicts that if an individual makes such a commitment he or she is more liable to be ethical than someone who does not.

Those with a high degree of Moral Health respect the findings of scientific Ethics, and keep posted on the latest research coming from its experimental branch, which is known as Morall Psychology. They like being aware.

Your views?
Post Reply