Rational conscious human beings want things to make sense. This is another way of saying that they want things to have some meaning. To have some meaning is to have some value, for to be meaningful is to be valuable, and vice versa. The converse is true also: what we find to be valuable is at once meaningful to us.
One way for an individual to have value is for him/her to create value. In each situation in which one finds oneself one may ask: how can I add value here and now? How can I upgrade this; how can I improve, innovate, make for more harmonious human relations, boost someone up, give a sincere compliment, make someone smile, make some arrangement that is mutually beneficial, is a win/win for all concerned? How can I be more efficient and effective?
What does it mean to be “effective”? In Ethics, the new paradigm proposed by the Hartman/Katz frame of reference, to be effective is to act so as to contribute toward a Quality Life for one and all. This, they propose, is the ultimate purpose of Ethics …the provision of a Quality Life, one of well-being and flourishing, for one and for all. This makes sense to me, for one.
Now you may say, this is all well and good but there is evil out there. There are bad people, malicious people who in seeking their own ends, are ready and willing to hurt folks of good will. These evil-minded “jackals” don’t care about anyone else as they pursue money, or comply with dogma and ideology, and believe that violence will help them achieve their ends-in-view.
For example, on March 24, 2015, this man, Andreas Lubitz, was a mass-murderer, killing 149 people at once, in addition to himself. We learn from new stories some facts, as in the report following:
“It’s been a week since Germanwings co-pilot Andreas Lubitz crashed a commercial plane into the French Alps — and much of the conversation since has focused on his mental health and medical record, especially at the time of the incident.
We know that Lubitz visited an eye doctor just before the flight for an apparent vision issue, and was deemed unfit to operate the aircraft. No medical professionals have reported Lubitz was suicidal at the time of the Airbus A320 accident, although a European official said he did complain to a neuropsychologist about work stress earlier this year. We also know Lubitz had a history of depression and suicidal thoughts, with a depressive episode in 2009 that halted his pilot’s training for several months. As Duesseldorf public prosecutor Christoph Kumpa told BBC News, he “had at that time been in treatment of a psychotherapist because of what is documented as being suicidal”— something it seems Lufthansa was informed of when Lubitz rejoined the program.” Also see http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/30/europe/fr ... rash-main/
In the “free enterprise” economy money is necessary to survive, to pay one’s rent and to buy food. Toward the end of getting money desperate people do desperate things – such as withholding rather-vital information from one’s boss at work in order to keep a job. So Andreas did not inform his employers that he could not see well-enough to go to work the day of his murder-suicide. On top of weak eyesight he had Generalized Anxiety Disorder which his psychotherapists finally revealed. Was Lubitz a “bad” person, a malicious evil-doer, or did he have mental-health issues? Is the latter a euphemism for mental disease, which is a terrible-sounding condition which no one wants to admit one has. Should brain-damage be stigmatized any more than is kidney-dmage?
Is it possible that many if not most people who do bad things of a ‘really evil’ sort have a brain condition? We don’t know the medical status of Irma Grese who contributed her skills to the S.S. in Nazi Germany as a camp guard - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irma_Grese - or the example of the female surgeon, commissioned by the Nazis, who injected ground-glass into the wombs of pregnant concentration-camp prisoners to measure how long it would take to kill the new-born baby. To her this was a scientific experiment. Were these women just “good citizens” doing their part for their nation as a patriot? Was either of them a habitual sadist? Is sadism a sickness? Was the surgeon compliant out of fear and intimidation? She definitely committed evil. There is no question about that.
So many “good Germans” went along to get along once the Third Reich was voted in. Most of the voters were likely ignorant of who their new leader really was, ignorant of his background and his deeply-held antisemitic, and race-purification, beliefs.
How many bad things are done to good people by others who believe that “violence is a way to solve problems”? Such a belief is held by those with a criminal mind, by military personnel, and by many ordinary citizens. Those who live in the ‘Muddle East’ do not have a monopoly on this concept. It is currently shared by many the world over.
Millions currently sanction vengeance as a form of justice; they speak of it as “getting even.” This concept of retribution was also held by the Hatfield clan and by the McCoy clan. Where they “bad” people? They were only trying to settle the previous score. Scoring points is a very common practice even within otherwise loving families. Also today people frequently “dis” one another; they show disrespect by casually tossing an insult, by name-calling, or by, in some way, putting an individual down. Is this ethical conduct? Is this worthy of one who intends to live a moral life?
After much consideration I have concluded that most all immoral conduct is the result of ignorance or of madness or due to some kind of brain damage - and this is a matter of degree. Some have more severe damage than others.
There is a lot more to be said on this topic, but I have made some points, and asked some questions, for you to comment on. How do you feel about these matters? Let’s hear your views.
What makes sense in Ethics
Re: What makes sense in Ethics
What, in your conception, is the most-basic problem or problems that Ethics - both theoretical and applied - has to overcome?
Why is it a problem?
Can you suggest a possible solution?
As to the question, What is the greatest problem? Hex has a response to offer:
It is, he contends, free riding. (This is also called 'free-loading.')
He has a point there. It is an ethical problem. Free-riders want the benefits (that society has to offer them) without paying any of the costs. Some examples [courtesy of Ben Dupre]: Workers who do not join a union but benefit from a pay-raise won by the union's negotiating skills. Countries who make no effort to control their carbon emissions but benefit from international actions to reduce the impact of global climate change. In such cases Selfishness overrides Enlightened self-interest.
That is why in my system of Ethics one of the conclusions is "No rights without responsibilities!" The recipient of benefits is morally obligated to assume responsibility and to be accountable for it. If a recepient of a government subsidy does some volunteer community service or engages in some activity to improve the world in an ethical direction then that individual is 'paying back' in a way and is to be forgiven ...just as we tolerate the compensations that corporate officers get these days while others work for minimum wages doing harder work than those company offficials who make the decisions on what to grant their lowest-paid workers. Let's face it: The world is not fair.
The point of the parable of The Workers in the Vineyard as I see it is this: Hex got the comfort in life that he has by the grace of God; he got what was 'promised' to him. It is bad taste for him to look at others who he judges to be better off and gripe that they are getting more. It's none of his business.
He thinks that life is just economics but it is much more than that. He has no idea how others suffer, what dire straits they endure; he just sees that they are getting a subsidy of a certain size that he judges to be "too much." Instead of working politically to get a better deal for the mimimun-wage laborer, instead of being an activist, he just says: There's something wrong here. He offers no solutions.
Kant would point out that if too many people reason in the same selfish way as the free-riders none of the hoped-for benefits would be achieved.
The new Ethical paradigm directs us to avoid Selfishness and to create value {by public service, by pro bono legal service, by giving as well as getting.} Have you done some volunteer work lately? Have you taken on some responsibility that no one else wants to do? Have you done a random act of kindness or beauty recently?
https://www.movements.org/
Did anything I wrote in the original post make any sense to you? And what do you think about the concepts to be found in the first two posts here
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14955
What do you think is the most-basic problem in Applied Ethics?
...Your thoughts?
Why is it a problem?
Can you suggest a possible solution?
As to the question, What is the greatest problem? Hex has a response to offer:
It is, he contends, free riding. (This is also called 'free-loading.')
He has a point there. It is an ethical problem. Free-riders want the benefits (that society has to offer them) without paying any of the costs. Some examples [courtesy of Ben Dupre]: Workers who do not join a union but benefit from a pay-raise won by the union's negotiating skills. Countries who make no effort to control their carbon emissions but benefit from international actions to reduce the impact of global climate change. In such cases Selfishness overrides Enlightened self-interest.
That is why in my system of Ethics one of the conclusions is "No rights without responsibilities!" The recipient of benefits is morally obligated to assume responsibility and to be accountable for it. If a recepient of a government subsidy does some volunteer community service or engages in some activity to improve the world in an ethical direction then that individual is 'paying back' in a way and is to be forgiven ...just as we tolerate the compensations that corporate officers get these days while others work for minimum wages doing harder work than those company offficials who make the decisions on what to grant their lowest-paid workers. Let's face it: The world is not fair.
The point of the parable of The Workers in the Vineyard as I see it is this: Hex got the comfort in life that he has by the grace of God; he got what was 'promised' to him. It is bad taste for him to look at others who he judges to be better off and gripe that they are getting more. It's none of his business.
He thinks that life is just economics but it is much more than that. He has no idea how others suffer, what dire straits they endure; he just sees that they are getting a subsidy of a certain size that he judges to be "too much." Instead of working politically to get a better deal for the mimimun-wage laborer, instead of being an activist, he just says: There's something wrong here. He offers no solutions.
Kant would point out that if too many people reason in the same selfish way as the free-riders none of the hoped-for benefits would be achieved.
The new Ethical paradigm directs us to avoid Selfishness and to create value {by public service, by pro bono legal service, by giving as well as getting.} Have you done some volunteer work lately? Have you taken on some responsibility that no one else wants to do? Have you done a random act of kindness or beauty recently?
https://www.movements.org/
Did anything I wrote in the original post make any sense to you? And what do you think about the concepts to be found in the first two posts here
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14955
What do you think is the most-basic problem in Applied Ethics?
...Your thoughts?
Re: What makes sense in Ethics
In earlier posts, explaining how I believe concepts of Ethics will be applied I raised the issue of ethical technology. Highly relevant to that discussion on the topic of how Ethics may be actually implemented as a living practice in this world, is this news report.
The way I see it, an ethical theory if it is really good will inspire folks to create new (moral) technologies, just as physical engineers invent applications of Physics that are practical and useful ...the internet and the smart-phone are two examples of the latter and also of the former: they can help to facilitate the spread of moral understanding and comprehension. They can be useful in teaching ethical principles. I couldn't have mentioned some for your consideration without the internet, n'est pas?
Take a look at this. Check this article out to see the news item and also the report on the latest research on the concept of "happiness.":
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ceo-raisi ... oArwAnnIlQ
then go here to learn more about this company and what they are about:
http://gravitypayments.com/about/
Is this Applied Ethics? I certainly think so !!! - What do you think?
Open for comment.
The way I see it, an ethical theory if it is really good will inspire folks to create new (moral) technologies, just as physical engineers invent applications of Physics that are practical and useful ...the internet and the smart-phone are two examples of the latter and also of the former: they can help to facilitate the spread of moral understanding and comprehension. They can be useful in teaching ethical principles. I couldn't have mentioned some for your consideration without the internet, n'est pas?
Take a look at this. Check this article out to see the news item and also the report on the latest research on the concept of "happiness.":
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ceo-raisi ... oArwAnnIlQ
then go here to learn more about this company and what they are about:
http://gravitypayments.com/about/
Is this Applied Ethics? I certainly think so !!! - What do you think?
Open for comment.
Last edited by prof on Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: What makes sense in Ethics
Isn't that Dan Price, the CEO of Gravity Payments Co., really something 
If every employer in the U.S.A. were like him what a great country we would be !
And I just came up with an analysis of selfishness that I'd like to share with you. Many of you have an interest in Ethical Theory and although this belongs more in the Theory forum than in the Applied Ethics forum I happen to be writing here - so here it is:
Selfishness is noncompliance with the definition of Ethics, which as you recall is the viewing of an individual, or group of them, from the perspective that sees the person (or the sentient being) as of uncountably-high value, as radiating with meaning and value. Selfishness results in conduct that is the opposite of ethical behavior. (If one takes the definition of Ethics seriously, and lives by it, one would have harmonious human relationships, one would be cooperative and willing and ready to share, to do acts of kindness that the recipient is willing to accept and appreciate.
Hence "selfishness" may be defined as: the pursuit of one's own pleasure and gratification along with disrespect for others, with indifference to their (innumerable) value. Indifference, as you know from the first few tiny chapters of the College Course booklet, gets zero value. http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/wp-cont ... course.pdf
The disrespect often is unconscious. If conscious, it is the Ethical Fallacy, the moral error, known as "Rankism." This mistake (which fundamentally is a lack of humility) results often in Racism - another fallacy - or it could result in criminality. For every criminal or murderer is indifferent to everyone but himself and his close-knit circle, and certainly doesn't care about his victims. He (or she) is exhibiting conscious (i.e., deliberate) Selfishness.
What are your thoughts on this matter?
And what do you think about Dan Price, the young CEO? Isn't he setting a good example of what a businessman could be?!!! - See: https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Aw ... ch&iscqry=
[Accessed 4-22-2015]
If every employer in the U.S.A. were like him what a great country we would be !
And I just came up with an analysis of selfishness that I'd like to share with you. Many of you have an interest in Ethical Theory and although this belongs more in the Theory forum than in the Applied Ethics forum I happen to be writing here - so here it is:
Selfishness is noncompliance with the definition of Ethics, which as you recall is the viewing of an individual, or group of them, from the perspective that sees the person (or the sentient being) as of uncountably-high value, as radiating with meaning and value. Selfishness results in conduct that is the opposite of ethical behavior. (If one takes the definition of Ethics seriously, and lives by it, one would have harmonious human relationships, one would be cooperative and willing and ready to share, to do acts of kindness that the recipient is willing to accept and appreciate.
Hence "selfishness" may be defined as: the pursuit of one's own pleasure and gratification along with disrespect for others, with indifference to their (innumerable) value. Indifference, as you know from the first few tiny chapters of the College Course booklet, gets zero value. http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/wp-cont ... course.pdf
The disrespect often is unconscious. If conscious, it is the Ethical Fallacy, the moral error, known as "Rankism." This mistake (which fundamentally is a lack of humility) results often in Racism - another fallacy - or it could result in criminality. For every criminal or murderer is indifferent to everyone but himself and his close-knit circle, and certainly doesn't care about his victims. He (or she) is exhibiting conscious (i.e., deliberate) Selfishness.
What are your thoughts on this matter?
And what do you think about Dan Price, the young CEO? Isn't he setting a good example of what a businessman could be?!!! - See: https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Aw ... ch&iscqry=
[Accessed 4-22-2015]
Re: What makes sense in Ethics
In this world, hate has never yet dispelled hate. Only love can dispel hate
What is true about hate, is also true about violence.
Those who commit cruelty are genetically challenged. This applies to those with a criminal mind. And those who ruin a good protest to redress grievances by smashing and looting have a criminal mind. "Out of work, desperate, and nothing to lose" is no excuse.
Can we expect responsibility and accountability from those with brain damage? Is 'hot anger' an excuse?
Should society invest more in Anger Management?
Your thoughts?.........
What is true about hate, is also true about violence.
Those who commit cruelty are genetically challenged. This applies to those with a criminal mind. And those who ruin a good protest to redress grievances by smashing and looting have a criminal mind. "Out of work, desperate, and nothing to lose" is no excuse.
Can we expect responsibility and accountability from those with brain damage? Is 'hot anger' an excuse?
Should society invest more in Anger Management?
Your thoughts?.........
Re: What makes sense in Ethics
I believe someone else has suggested a very effective anger management program, it involves bullets. Those going through the program would no longer be angry, so long as those pulling the trigger, do it with love.prof wrote:In this world, hate has never yet dispelled hate. Only love can dispel hate
What is true about hate, is also true about violence.
Those who commit cruelty are genetically challenged. This applies to those with a criminal mind. And those who ruin a good protest to redress grievances by smashing and looting have a criminal mind. "Out of work, desperate, and nothing to lose" is no excuse.
Can we expect responsibility and accountability from those with brain damage? Is 'hot anger' an excuse?
Should society invest more in Anger Management?
Your thoughts?.........
Re: What makes sense in Ethics
Is this clear thinking? Or does it illustrate twisted values, a value mix-up, such as, say, mixing honey with sawdust as a dish to serve human beings? Technically, in Formal Axiology, such conjunctions are called 'Transpositions of Value.'thedoc wrote:..., so long as those pulling the trigger, do it with love.
The Definition of Ethics [in the paradigm that I shall now name Ethics for the 21st-Century] informs us that Ethics is a perspective on individuals that views them as values, more-exactly as of uncountably-high value. Lives matter ...whatever the color of the skin may be. To shoot bullets at a conscious sentient being is to do harm, is to cause pain, to downgrade a life. This, the ethical theory indicates, is wrong.
Morally speaking, it is wrong!
And so is any other kind of violence. Do not confuse 'violence' with 'force.' If you forcibly intervene to prevent a rape you are okay ethically. You are not violent; the rapist is. If a drowning person is excitedly flailing about, and you restrain him and subdue him in order to drag him to shore, to rescue him - you are not commiting violence; you are using force. This is morally acceptable. {See also my recent post commenting on current events in Bill's thread on "What is Happening in Baltimore..."}
Your views on these topics?