Important Announcement about a new paper on ethics

[prof]

Wade is a friend.

He is a philosopher and a programmer. He has volunteered to web-host my writings. No money has ever changed hands between us.

He had to pay for that kindle book before he could express his views about it, since kindle does not allow a publication to charge zero. So he bought the book, then as he is entitled to do, wrote a review. Those were his views, not mine.

There is no dishonesty involved.

[-1-]

I applaud your honesty and candid disclosure.

I usually let my friends read my books for free, and not only the e-books, but physical copies of them.

Wade's opinion is not one at arms-length. He is your friend. Anyone knowing that has the right to hold suspicion on the correctness of his opinion, as he has a vested interest in helping his friend. His interest may not be monetary; it may boil down to just simply being nice. But it is not an opinion which has not been influenced by anything else but the book itself.

I am not attacking Wade's integrity or honesty. I am just running along the same basic assumption, that compels potential employers and head-hunters to ask job-seekers to provide personal references that come from other than family or relatives.

[prof]

Why aren't you my friend?

Aren't we all brothers and sisters?

[prof]

I applaud your honesty and candid disclosure.

Wade.... His interest may not be monetary; it may boil down to just simply being nice.

Yes. You got that right.
He is a shining example of an ethical human being. He is a mentch.

This world needs more people like him.

The question is: Why aren't the rest nice?

Is it due to some kind of abuse (psychological or physical) during the formative years? Is it due to poor upbringing? Is it due to living in a culture with distorted or confused values?
Or is it due to brain damage? Is that damage due to poor nutrition, or is it congenital?
Or, is it all of the above?

Your considered views? Do you have facts to back up that view?

[FlashDangerpants]

Wade is a friend.

He is a philosopher and a programmer. He has volunteered to web-host my writings. No money has ever changed hands between us.

He had to pay for that kindle book before he could express his views about it, since kindle does not allow a publication to charge zero. So he bought the book, then as he is entitled to do, wrote a review. Those were his views, not mine.

There is no dishonesty involved.

Ok, so after the transparent attempt to mislead, finally you admit the totally obvious fact that you got that review from a shill.
But you recognise no dishonesty in any of that. The lies of omission and evasion are nothing to you, glorious professor of ethical sciences that you are...

So how many of the other...

It is receiving favorable reviews.

Are also friends and family? Or otherwise beholden to you?

Why aren't you more honest Marvin? Isn't it sort of your job to be so?

[Science Fan]

If an author's friend or blood relative wrote an unfavorable review, should we give that negative review more weight than normal? I can see how an author who is just starting out will have most of their reviews done by people who know them, but that, in and of itself, does not mean the views are not honest appraisals of the author's works. So, I can see how new authors, who do not have some big publishing company behind them, are somewhat screwed if we automatically discount all reviews by people who know them personally.

[prof]

If an author's friend or blood relative wrote an unfavorable review, should we give that negative review more weight than normal? I can see how an author who is just starting out will have most of their reviews done by people who know them, but that, in and of itself, does not mean the views are not honest appraisals of the author's works. So, I can see how new authors, who do not have some big publishing company behind them, are somewhat screwed if we automatically discount all reviews by people who know them personally.

Greetings, Science Fan

Well said !!

You make lots of sense.



...To those interested in Philosophy, wouldn't the content of the treatise be of more interest than who wrote a freakin' review
Let's have a sense of proportion. And Mr. Harvey is no shill of anyone.


Professor Hartman's definition of value is: a one-to-one correspondence between attributes and properties for judge J at time t. "Attributes" here means: names of properties. They are conceptual. "Value" is a reification of the process of valuation. J values something, and this is an analysis of what is going on in his mind.
To illustrate, he wants a chair with comfortable back support. He goes into a furniture store to browse. He finds a chair which he perceives to have that feature. He says to himself: "This has value to me. I'll take it."


."Value" means the same whether one is valuing an item for being inexpensive [a bargain], or for being a museum piece; or one's favorite philosopher's output, or some tasty food. It also applies to valuing one's girlfriend, or mother. The analysis holds across the board.

.

[Science Fan]

Are you talking about utility curves?

[fooloso4]

Prof:

Important announcement …

It may be important to your self-aggrandizement but having read some of the stuff you have been peddling for years, I doubt it is important.

To my understanding philosophy deals with concepts.

Your understanding is impoverished. That is not to say it doesn’t deal with concepts but that is only a part of it.

I thought this is a forum for those who love wisdom....

I thought you thought it was about the clarification of concepts. Perhaps you think that wisdom lies in the clarification of concepts?

[-1-]

If an author's friend or blood relative wrote an unfavorable review, should we give that negative review more weight than normal? I can see how an author who is just starting out will have most of their reviews done by people who know them, but that, in and of itself, does not mean the views are not honest appraisals of the author's works. So, I can see how new authors, who do not have some big publishing company behind them, are somewhat screwed if we automatically discount all reviews by people who know them personally.

I tend to agree with this, with the extra proviso that we can't fully trust reviews by friends and relatives. They may be completely honest in their admiration for the works, but they may have ulterior motives, such as a personal bias for the writer. The problem is, we can't tell it from here.

This can be conjugated many ways. We can say that we ought not outright discount the reviews by friends, but we could say we ought to oughtright discount them, and theoretically neither party has stronger or weaker arguments against the other. The only way to decide whether to trust reviewers who are not arms-length from the writer, is an empirical test, and that is to read the goddamned book and form our own opinion. But that we can do without any review by friends and relatives.

And in the end it is we who have to decide for ourselves, so in the end, reviews by friends and relatives can be discounted, as they are as likely to be wrong as right. Which beats the purpose of getting reviews by friends and relatives.

This is all fine and dandy, but what if there is a glowing review, and the reader of the review does not know the fact that it has been written by a perhaps, but not necessarily, biassed reviewer? The reader of the review is in this scenario DECEIVED. Deception is moral fault; I think those on this thread who condemn the writer for hiding from the general public who reads the reviews, that they have not been written by an arms-length distance reviewer, are doing a morally justified condemnation.

This condemnation has been called un-nice. I think a different twist can be also called un-nice: knowingly not telling the public who it has been who wrote the reviews.

[prof]

One human life is worth more than all the guns in the United States. This is not just an economic issue. It is a moral issue!!

______________Parkland High School student at "Never Again!" - March for our Lives



Could this be the basis of an Ethical Theory?


I think so......

[-1-]

One human life is worth more than all the guns in the United States. This is not just an economic issue. It is a moral issue!!

______________Parkland High School student at "Never Again!" - March for our Lives



Could this be the basis of an Ethical Theory?


I think so......

Strawman! How are you doing? I haven't seen you around for some time.

[prof]

.
On enlightenment, on having enlightened self-interest.

I came upon these thuoght-provoking quotes. They could serve as a supplement to the teachings found in the document to which a link is offered here:
THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018)
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT ... %20all.pdf

Conventional wisdom says to do good things and then you will also be good. Yes, you will be considered to be a good person by others, but you will remain unconscious and divided. Those who have enlightenment say: be good first and then you will do good things. Be real, be conscious, and the consequences will follow, but not the other way around.

Life is gift. Before enlightenment, life is a problem to be solved.
After enlightenment, life is a mystery to be enjoyed. Enjoy love, beauty, happiness, but do not strive for them or they will escape you. Just be authentic; conscious, and ego-less.

If you become totally conscious, you will do good things just because you want to do them. Because you feel it at your core that it is the right thing to do. When you are conscious, you cannot help yourself but do good and be good only. The effects will come back to you immediately, you don't need to wait for another life or heaven.

Comments?
Discussion?

[prof]

Preview: Re: Important Announcement about a new paper on ethics


Wise persons agree that to know the good is not necessarily to do the good. Yet it is more likely that if one is keenly aware of what is in one's best interest, one will do the right thing. And it is a fact that doing good is indeed, for many reasons, in one's best interest.

Hence we need to know all we can learn about goodness, and then mobilize it, organize it, and put it into practice!!


We need a systematic theory of what makes moral sense, and arrange things so that these insights become common sense. We need to be clear about our priorities


It is also true that there are some bad laws that do not align with moral sense. There are laws that are not in keeping with getting our priorities straight.

.
For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out these links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment

THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018) [NEW]
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT ... %20all.pdf

HOW TO LIVE SUCCESSFULLY: how ethics helps us flourish
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/HOW%20 ... SFULLY.pdf

BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach (2014) http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz

ETHICAL ADVENTURES - http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ET ... NTURES.pdf

ETHICAL EXPLORATIONS - http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ONS%20.pdf

and ASPECTS OF ETHICS - http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ics%20.pdf

Comments?
Discussion?

[tassieguy]

Prof, I had a look at your paper. I'm sorry to say that I don't think its announcement was important.