How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

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

surreptitious57
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:48 pm

Age wrote:
What I would not do to be able to just say and express that what I want to share like all of you in this forum can do
I just post my thoughts because that is all I can do for how they are interpreted is not up to me
Every one here I think has more knowledge than me and so I try to learn from them where I can

prof
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by prof » Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:29 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:57 am
However, if any computer or any person is seen as an 'authority', then what you are proposing here on this page will just collapse.
What was actually written in the book is this:

With the aid of social media this computer’s noncontroversial output will be widely publicized by all sorts of media. If done right, these reported findings will come to feel rather authoritative. They may thus gain wide respect, at least by educated people. These findings could serve as guidelines for educators, policy-makers, and parents.

:) In suggesting that the output of the survey made by a super-computer "might come to feel rather authoritative," I did not mean, even for a moment, that it would trample on people, boss them around, or dominate over them :!:

Logik
Posts: 3911
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Logik » Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:48 am

prof wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:29 am
I did not mean, even for a moment, that it would trample on people, boss them around, or dominate over them :!:
Via what mechanism will we ensure that this doesn't happen?

surreptitious57
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:27 am

Does non controversial mean universal consensus ?
If not what be the specific criteria for deciding it ?
Is the super computer capable of thinking for itself ?
How can it be made to understand non logical concepts ?
Can it for example be programmed to understand the difference between good and bad ?
What guarantee is there that the media will report the non controversial without any bias ?
What happens when sub cultures do not want to assimilate but wish to retain their identity ?
Why do you think your philosophy has so far never been successfully applied to human society ?

Age
Posts: 1705
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Age » Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:54 pm

prof wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:29 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:57 am
However, if any computer or any person is seen as an 'authority', then what you are proposing here on this page will just collapse.
What was actually written in the book is this:

With the aid of social media this computer’s noncontroversial output will be widely publicized by all sorts of media. If done right, these reported findings will come to feel rather authoritative. They may thus gain wide respect, at least by educated people. These findings could serve as guidelines for educators, policy-makers, and parents.


If "findings" are NOT agreed upon and NOT accepted by EVERY one, which is what is implied by saying, "at least by 'educated people', then the "findings/guidelines" will NOT want to be followed and adhered to by EVERY one.
prof wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:29 am
:) In suggesting that the output of the survey made by a super-computer "might come to feel rather authoritative," I did not mean, even for a moment, that it would trample on people, boss them around, or dominate over them :!:
I KNEW you did not mean it that way. But any 'feeling of authoritative' that comes from outside of one's own self does NOT jell well with that one.

I can fully understand, now that you have highlighted this for me here, that 'whatever', (the output of a computer, the findings, or whatever else,) may feel authoritative; because that authoritative feeling does arise when one KNOWS, for sure, some thing by them self, which would be in agreement with absolute EVERY one. This is the 'KNOWING' that I refer to, and which is the GUIDE that absolutely EVERY one will want to follow and want to adhere to voluntarily anyway.

If any "findings/guidelines" come from an outside source, other than from one's own self, and it is publicized but it does NOT make sense to a person, then it WILL BE 'controversial output'. The only 'noncontroversial output', which would feel authoritative is that what is agreed with and accepted by ALL. If it makes sense and is agreed with by ALL, then it will be respected, but if it has only got "wide" respect by some, even if it is at least by so called "educated people", then it will be CONTROVERSIAL. For any thing to be Truly 'noncontroversial' then it obviously would have the widest of respect, by EVERY one, and NOT just some. "Educated" or not.

What I would have been better writing, which would have been more correct is; If any computer, any person, or any thing, is seen as an 'authority', other than one's own self, then what you are proposing here on this page will just collapse.

In order for 'findings' to be able to Truly feel rather authoritative, then those 'findings', literally, have to be 'found' from within one's own self. Only when answers are 'found' by and from one's own self, which make absolute sense with EVERY thing else, are KNOWN 100% for sure to be True, Right, and Correct, then that is when that True authoritative feeling will be felt. It is NOT an authoritative feeling of control over "others" but only a sense of control over one's own self.

If there is any sense of an outside source feeling authoritative, (outside of one's own self), then what you are proposing will NOT work.

Any authoritative feeling other than what comes naturally from one's own self will only lead to resentment, revenge, revolt, rebelling, and eventually to a revolution. A reason why rules and law have never successfully worked is because they are made up by some, enforced by some others, in an attempt to over power and control some more. Rules and law and only work because of fear and judgement.

Some might now be thinking that if there was NOT, so called, 'law and "order" ', then there would be anarchy, mayhem, and/or chaos, but if those people are ONLY doing what is, so called "right" because of rules, then what would they say if asked, "Why is that?"

If those people who BELIEVE that there HAS TO be 'rules', but do NOT know WHY they, themselves, would go around doing wrong, hurting and harming others if there were no rules, then they still have some more to learn, BEFORE they start deciding 'what is right and what is wrong in Life' and choosing what is ethically best or not.

What is accepted and agreed upon by SOME is NOT the best for ALL. Only 'THAT' what is in agreement and accepted by ALL is what is best for ALL.

Only 'THAT' what is in agreement and accepted by ALL, as being right and wrong in LIfe, is what is Truly wanted anyway, and is what is wanted to be naturally followed and adhered to also. By just doing what one naturally wants to do, without any fear at all of blame, judgement, and punishment, then they will want to keep doing what they are doing voluntarily, and thus very happily also.

prof
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by prof » Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:10 am

Thanks for looking at the content of the book, Age.

At least you, doing what felt naturally right to you, had the courage and the trust to click on a link I offered to see what you could learn. And in fact it gave you the opportunity to express your own views on ethics, and teach me, a Professor of Ethics, a thing or two.

You have a healthy curiosity and I compliment you for that.

Age
Posts: 1705
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Age » Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:41 am

Page 13: When one behaves ethically one is actually pursuing one’s self-interest.

If one is pursuing one's individual and different self-interest over another's, then I think we know what could possibly happen.

However, when one discovers and knows Who one actually Truly IS, then pursuing that individual One's Self-interest is for the benefit and well being of ALL.


Page 14: Furthermore, research in Brain Neurology has shown that we are prewired to seek our own personal benefit.

When is a person at a higher personal benefit?

When others surrounding or are close to that person are happy, supportive and are cooperating with that person, or,
When a person feels separated, alone, isolated, and/or different?

If a person felt connected with EVERY one and EVERY one was truly happy, supportive of, and cooperating with and for, each other, then I would suggest that what is "hardwired" sought, for one's personal benefit, would already have been found, and thus the searching is over. (Apologies. I just read the rest of this paragraph, which answers my two clarifying questions here.)

Make things better!

I use the term Make Life Better, which roughly translates to exactly what you say here.

I say 'Make Life Better' instead of 'make a better life' (for my children for example) because that has a connotation of only making things better for some, and not for ALL, which obviously would NEVER work out.

Whereas the phrase 'make Life better' infers for EVERY one and not just some. 'Make a better life', however, usually only refers to a select few people.

so that it sweeps in as many people as possible into what we consider to be our in-group.

My 'in-group' includes ALL, and also not just people. Obviously ALL people are equal anyway, but Life does NOT revolve only around people but absolutely EVERY thing, so to me, "my" in-clusive group is Everyone as One.

It starts with our own self.

And ends with Knowing Thy Self.

Page 15: Only when we have a better understanding do we get to expand the Zone.

Once Knowing Who Thy True Self IS is fully understood, then there is NO expansion. The 'Zone' is One.

Up to now your book has great ideas and concepts. It is a shame most people here will not read it.

If you would like to "work" on the ideas more together, away from this forum, then I would be more than happy to discuss.

prof
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by prof » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:11 am

Age wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:41 am
.... I just read the rest of this paragraph, which answers my two clarifying questions here.

Make things better!

I use the term Make Life Better, which roughly translates to exactly what you say here.

the phrase 'make Life better' infers for EVERY one and not just some. ...

so that it sweeps in as many people as possible into what we consider to be our in-group.

It starts with our own self.

And ends with Knowing Thy Self.

Page 15: Only when we have a better understanding do we get to expand the Zone.

...Up to now your book has great ideas and concepts. It is a shame most people here will not read it.

Greetings, Age

You get it !

And although you've only studied the content of THE STRUCTURE book up to page 15, you expose the false-to-fact assertion by trolls that no one here at this Forum ever reads my books, nor shows any interest in what I have to say.

Every one is encouraged to take a look inside, thus noting that a synthesis of concepts from the field of Ethics, and Ethical Theory, can be woven into a tapestry that can make sense, and if practiced, can change lives - for the better.
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf

Age
Posts: 1705
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Age » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:55 am

Page 22: You would create value in your encounters with others if you care to comply with the structure of Ethics as it is outlined here in this book. You are not compelled to do so; although you are, in a sense, “obliged” to, since we are all obliged to be morally good by the very meaning of the words.

If any person feels a sense of having to 'comply' with some thing, then the sense of 'complying' leaves a sense of being forced to do some thing that is not voluntarily wanted to do. If doing some thing is not voluntarily wanted, then there will be a sense of resentment and/or rebelling involved. This will NOT be ethical. Changing the 'compelling' word to the 'obliged' word will not help your cause here.

Human beings are NOT obliged to be 'morally good' nor any thing else for that matter.

Human beings are born, experience things while growing up thinking and behaving or misbehaving in "others" eyes.

If you just want human beings to do what is RIGHT or GOOD, then come to understand why ALL adult human beings do WRONG and BAD. Once you KNOW why human beings do the things they do, then you can prevent them from doing some things while encouraging them to do other things.

If any adult wants to learn WHY ALL adults do wrong and/or bad things, then they just need absolute Honesty, Openness, and a serious Want to change, for the better, in order to LEARN WHY them, themselves, do the wrong and/or bad things that they do. The very reason WHY 'you', any adult, do wrong and/or bad things is the EXACT SAME REASON why ALL adult human beings do wrong and/or bad things.

Logik
Posts: 3911
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Logik » Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:00 am

prof wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:11 am
You get it !

And although you've only studied the content of THE STRUCTURE book up to page 15, you expose the false-to-fact assertion by trolls that no one here at this Forum ever reads my books, nor shows any interest in what I have to say.
The contents of your book can be summed up in one sentence: "Lets build Utopia!". I agree. Every human agrees! Every human ever has agreed since kingdom come.

The hard question is: HOW? This is the on-going project we call "science"

Like the Titanic - some people's existence only serves as a warning to others.

Q.E.D prof

55 years in he finally gets validation for his ideas. Too bad there's no time left to put them into practice...
Philosophy (quite literally) wastes lives!

prof
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by prof » Thu Feb 21, 2019 3:53 am

Logik wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:00 am
prof wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:11 am
You get it !

And although you've only studied the content of THE STRUCTURE book up to page 15, you expose the false-to-fact assertion by trolls that no one here at this Forum ever reads my books, nor shows any interest in what I have to say.
The hard question is: HOW? This is the on-going project we call "science"
...Philosophy (quite literally) wastes lives!
Agreeing with Logik in re the value of science in gaining for us a better world, readers will note that on pages 35 and 36 of the book THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS, a strong 'plug' (endorsement) was given which began as follows:

WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM THE MORAL ARC BOOK


Michael Shermer, who wrote a book entitled “The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People,” informs us that.....

Learn for yourselves:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf

Logik
Posts: 3911
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Logik » Thu Feb 21, 2019 3:59 am

prof wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 3:53 am
Logik wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:00 am
prof wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:11 am
You get it !

And although you've only studied the content of THE STRUCTURE book up to page 15, you expose the false-to-fact assertion by trolls that no one here at this Forum ever reads my books, nor shows any interest in what I have to say.
The hard question is: HOW? This is the on-going project we call "science"
...Philosophy (quite literally) wastes lives!
Agreeing with Logik in re the value of science in gaining for us a better world, readers will note that on pages 35 and 36 of the book THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS, a strong 'plug' (endorsement) was given which began as follows:

WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM THE MORAL ARC BOOK


Michael Shermer, who wrote a book entitled “The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People,” informs us that.....

Learn for yourselves:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf
So if you "agree" with me why are you writing books instead of DOING science?

Such "agreement" without doxastic commitment is mere lip service.

Virtue signaling.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3485
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:34 am

Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 3:59 am
prof wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 3:53 am
Logik wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:00 am

The hard question is: HOW? This is the on-going project we call "science"
...Philosophy (quite literally) wastes lives!
Agreeing with Logik in re the value of science in gaining for us a better world, readers will note that on pages 35 and 36 of the book THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS, a strong 'plug' (endorsement) was given which began as follows:

WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM THE MORAL ARC BOOK


Michael Shermer, who wrote a book entitled “The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People,” informs us that.....

Learn for yourselves:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf
So if you "agree" with me why are you writing books instead of DOING science?

Such "agreement" without doxastic commitment is mere lip service.

Virtue signaling.
You argue elsewhere that science is just made up...hence the point you present is mute as book are made up as well.

Logik
Posts: 3911
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Logik » Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:41 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:34 am
You argue elsewhere that science is just made up...hence the point you present is mute as book are made up as well.
Science is made up. That does not detract from the fact that it works.

The mere point is that if (when?) our civilisation goes and another one takes its place the knowledge the next civilisation produces will LOOK nothing like ours. It will probably do much the same thing, But it will be recorded, transmitted, described and symbolised in ways that nobody from our civilisation would understand.

Look at the South American vs Ancient Egyptian knowledge.

Equal utility astronomical map. Predicted the same things. Did the same thing. Looked NOTHING like each other!

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3485
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:47 am

Logik wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:41 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:34 am
You argue elsewhere that science is just made up...hence the point you present is mute as book are made up as well.
Science is made up. That does not detract from the fact that it works.

Then if it is made up and it works, a book works as well and your point is bunk.

The mere point is that if (when?) our civilisation goes and another one takes its place the knowledge the next civilisation produces will LOOK nothing like ours. It will probably do much the same thing, But it will be recorded, transmitted, described and symbolised in ways that nobody from our civilisation would understand.



Look at the South American vs Ancient Egyptian knowledge.

Equal utility astronomical map. Predicted the same things. Did the same thing. Looked NOTHING like each other!

Actually they both had pyramids, where both farming cultures, the dieties had similiar resurrection stores, both observed crosses in thier foundational religions, etc.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest