What is Morality?

[prof]

Some scholars argue that the readiness to define key words is paramount to any deep conversation. In the following paragraphs I shall offer a definition of morality. It implies that how you treat yourself is as important as how you treat others, in the sense that if you deliberately do the things, persist in the habits, that you know will cripple you or tend to cause yourself an early death, you are in a weaker position to help others. So, if you allow yourself to slip into addiction, mutilation, or some other form of self-abuse, you are not in the strong position you would be if you did not; and thus you will not be able to be of such assistance to people who need your help.

My point is that morality is toward yourself as well as toward others. But what is it? What is "morality"? Since Ethics is about the good life for the good individual person, it is appropriate to first understand what "good" is before we proceed to discuss moral goodness, or morality. I'm going to invoke some Logic now.

In my system of Ethics, I needed a term for the case where - instead of x is a member of the class C - x is now is a member of the class X. Let me explain. When x is a C, that means x is a category or classification. The concept-name is C. For example, this x is a chair. C stands for chair, here.

This particular chair, x - observed by the senses - will be a good chair if x fulfills the definition of what a chair is. If this chair is a knee-high structure, if it has a seat, if it has a back ....then it is good as a chair. This chair has value.

If you believe a chair must have more than its mere bare definition, then you have shifted the concept, say to "easy chair" or "chaise lounge," or "flowery upholstered chair", etc. Then this chair would have to have those extra characteristics, those further properties, in order to fulfill this new description of what you suppose a chair to be. You are the judge valuing it. It is your conception, it is the name you put on it - and the meaning associated with that name - that sets the norm. We have been discussing value in general. And goodness is full value. Value is a matter of degree; meaning is its measure.

Now if x is a member of the unit-class named X, where x is an individual, and X is his proper name, then x can be moral to the extent that x fulfills his own definition of himself: X. The latter must not contain any contradictions else it cannot be fulfilled. A good murderer would be a morally bad person, and the better the individual is as a murderer, the worse as a person.

So, x is-a-member-of X means self being Self. Self is one's self-identity which includes one's self-image, one's values, one's principles, etc. "self" = one's bodily, observable self, one's conduct, behavior, etc. I have named this relationship of self to Self: Morality. Morality is moral value.

Whatever was true of value in general is now true of morality: it is a matter of degree; when complete fulfillment is present we have goodness {also described as sincerity, honesty, authenticity, genuineness, etc.}; it has its dimensions that can be analyzed to see its fine-structure; etc., etc.

To acquire a fuller, more well-rounded picture of the meaning of morality, (within this frame-of-reference), and its extensive implications, see the four parts of the book entitled A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS. Here is a link to the first part of it: http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ETHICS.pdf

After you have looked it over, including the End Notes, let me know what you think about it. Okay?

In order to clear up some possible confusion I should add these comments: Anyone who commits crimes has a contradiction in his self-definition. He is affirming non-harming of individuals (including himself) while at the same time denying non-harming of individuals. If the crime is violent, then even more so is he or she a living contradiction who cannot fulfill his/her self-definition because it is incoherent.

Early in the Unified Theory of Ethics it clearly says, on p. 6:
f your observable self, your conduct, matches your beliefs, (your ‘Self’), and if your beliefs are evolving in a more compassionate, more empathic, more inclusive direction, to that degree you are moral. Your views regarding how to enhance the group(s) to which you belong, as well as how to conduct yourself when you think no one is watching; or, say, how you would behave if you were invisible, Those views comprise what the theory refers to as your ‘self-ideals.’

In the late 1580's, maybe in 1587, these lines were penned:

"To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man." ---William Shakespeare

My definition of "morality" is a very dynamic one. I over-simplified earlier if I left the impression that it is merely "self being Self." Actually, and more accurately, it is "self being true to true Self." More-precisely still, it is "self increasingly corresponding to an improving, constructive (in contrast to 'destructive') Self-image." "To fulfill" in my previous description, means "to be in one-to-one correspondence with." The correspondence is between perceived properties and the property-names which comprise the Self-image (which includes one's self-identity, one's value-structure.) The notion is dynamic because the person is to be growing in an ethical sense, maturing; more and more his Self is to be absorbing the latest views of to what a human being could aspire. S/he is to become all s/he is capable of being and becoming. That is the way I understand the concept.

I'm prepared to answer any questions you may have about this proposed definition. The term arose as a relationship between other concepts in the system. The most appropriate name to put on that relationship seemed to me to be "morality." I hope and trust you find it to be acceptable, once you have studied the complete system ...which will never be complete, as it is evolving, as improvements are suggested, and as new discoveries impel its modification for the better.

[Hjarloprillar]

Sometimes i wonder at idiocy.
that no-one has an opinion on the important .

one could misquote the bard and say.. 'to ones ego be true'
__________________________________________________
"My definition of "morality" is a very dynamic one. I over-simplified earlier if I left the impression that it is merely "self being Self." Actually, and more accurately, it is "self being true to true Self."
__________________________________________________
In all things , especially the self.. no lies."
[For 5000 years we have lied.look what it got us. is this crap society all we can be? NO]
Your post is well done, not to long to wordy or too short
Intelligent and very coherent.

logic and philosophy .
Ill look at links now.

[The Voice of Time]

It is my opinion that to define morality is meaningless, and that it is dead-end to philosophical progress. Talking about it is like trying to erect a new building using reconstruction ideas from an archaeological sites. It only preserves the past, doesn't make much for the future.

In the end, you should think about morality the same way you think about society in general and how we make progress there, and we should use and follow those unified works on ethics that does best what we desire as a society.

[prof]

The cynics have the loudest voice, they make the most noise; but I promise you: they accomplish the least !

[Bill Wiltrack]

.









......................................................................







.

[prof]

Your post is well done ....
logic and philosophy .
Ill look at links now.

Greetings, prill

You have a mind open to learning, and a character ready and capable of moral development and growth.

Happy Reading!!

You are aware that no other proposed theory in the field of ethics defines its key terms - such as 'morality', for example - and thus is doomed to be vague and ambiguous, open to all kinds of distorted interpretations.

I have no idea what "unified works of ethics" VOT is talking about.

Notice how Germany got through the Great Recession with a minimum of problems relative the the USA, because in Germany they cared about the workers. The owners of the companies called in the Unions and formed an agreement that everyone in the business would take a shorter week with a corresponding cut in pay until the crisis was over. In the U.S. virtually no progress is being made because government's hands are tied by those dedicated to upholding the power-elite, the super-rich, at the expense of everyone else.

So when that brain, VOT, speaks of "we should use and follow those unified works on ethics that does best what we desire as a society." he does not take into consideration that what the super-wealthy class desires and, in contrast, what those who have less money - or those who live in poverty and need - want, are two different sets of desires!!

What we need urgently are win/win solutions to pressing problems; and the Unified Theory of Ethics, and the eventual Science of Ethics that will emerge, facilitate the search for such solutions. The system gives us a set of principles that can be a guide to constructive action.

And, Bill, my friend, could you please be more specific as to what points you are making with your animated photo of death and destruction. We are well-aware of the many, many problems that face us. What we really need are answers. True, you have given us one, which is to support the trade union and the cooperative movements. We need more specifics.

Once again, prill, I thank you for taking the trouble to actually read through my post, and I am glad it started to respond to some of your questions. I am at your service.

[The Voice of Time]

The cynics have the loudest voice, they make the most noise; but I promise you: they accomplish the least !

Let me ask a very simple straight-forward question: do you actually NEED a definition? Does it make sizeable difference as opposed to practical working matters?

[The Voice of Time]

I have no idea what "unified works of ethics" VOT is talking about.

Unified just means composed as a whole, as in contradiction of things that lack wholeness.

So when that brain, VOT, speaks of "we should use and follow those unified works on ethics that does best what we desire as a society." he does not take into consideration that what the super-wealthy class desires and, in contrast, what those who have less money - or those who live in poverty and need - want, are two different sets of desires!!

I think you are Americanizing the issue here, that is: generalizing based upon your own country. While all, or most, societies, have a set of wealthy people striking contrast to poor people, I come from a very homogeneous society where traditional work ethics are very respected by all levels and although we do have strikes, many companies leaders and headsmen work very closely with their employees and you rarely get the big fat cat versus the poor mouse situation that you seem to be referring to, Norway is, in many aspects, very different from the US, not only accounting for obvious facts like the ones a wiki-article will tell you, but also in terms of everything from faith (largely atheist or non-believing) to habits (myself not being a good example, workout and trips into nature are very strong traditions and Norwegians are generally very fit) to public opinions (strong consensus around welfare state and the many obligations of the state as opposed to what isn't the state's obligations) to the structure of society (for instance, 1 in every 5 Norwegian worker has a leadership position, making the leadership density very high and top-to-bottom leadership is seen much less of in general and work authority and the like is much more slack).

So when I talk about the desires of society I talk from a very different original position than you do. I have heard more than enough about the problems in the US democratic systems, the widespread lobbyism and the strict presidential top-to-bottom system not to mention the unelected (that is, by the people) and undying senate. While lobbyism exists everywhere, in our society lobbyism it is much more influenced by strong labour unions that push every year for higher wages (or, inflation-adjusted wages at least, they all make a shitload compared to the rest of the world to begin with). We don't have any president (except the honorary title of president of parliament, which is really more a time-keeper job for how long people can talk), our king's job is only to look pretty, and though we did not long ago have a bicameral parliament it had never functioned de facto as one and so people abolished it as unnecessary recently. When you vote in Norway you vote once every four years and you vote in how many people of your specific party you want in the government, and then those parties get seats matching that number (let's say 15% voted socialist left, 35% labour, 30% progression party, 5% red (communist party), 10% right party, 5% left party, they get their percentage of the total of 169 seats), and the party or coalition with highest number of seats asks the king to make a government, and the king sees if the party or coalition indeed has the highest amount of votes, and then they get to form a government.

What we need urgently are win/win solutions to pressing problems; and the Unified Theory of Ethics, and the eventual Science of Ethics that will emerge, facilitate the search for such solutions. The system gives us a set of principles that can be a guide to constructive action.

Yes, unfortunately it lack sophistication and will only tell people what they already know, like a shopping list, although it doesn't lack (unfortunately) complexity.

[Hjarloprillar]

I have no idea what "unified works of ethics" VOT is talking about.

Unified just means composed as a whole, as in contradiction of things that lack wholeness.

So when that brain, VOT, speaks of "we should use and follow those unified works on ethics that does best what we desire as a society." he does not take into consideration that what the super-wealthy class desires and, in contrast, what those who have less money - or those who live in poverty and need - want, are two different sets of desires!!

I think you are Americanizing the issue here, that is: generalizing based upon your own country. While all, or most, societies, have a set of wealthy people striking contrast to poor people, I come from a very homogeneous society where traditional work ethics are very respected by all levels and although we do have strikes, many companies leaders and headsmen work very closely with their employees and you rarely get the big fat cat versus the poor mouse situation that you seem to be referring to, Norway is, in many aspects, very different from the US, not only accounting for obvious facts like the ones a wiki-article will tell you, but also in terms of everything from faith (largely atheist or non-believing) to habits (myself not being a good example, workout and trips into nature are very strong traditions and Norwegians are generally very fit) to public opinions (strong consensus around welfare state and the many obligations of the state as opposed to what isn't the state's obligations) to the structure of society (for instance, 1 in every 5 Norwegian worker has a leadership position, making the leadership density very high and top-to-bottom leadership is seen much less of in general and work authority and the like is much more slack).

So when I talk about the desires of society I talk from a very different original position than you do. I have heard more than enough about the problems in the US democratic systems, the widespread lobbyism and the strict presidential top-to-bottom system not to mention the unelected (that is, by the people) and undying senate. While lobbyism exists everywhere, in our society lobbyism it is much more influenced by strong labour unions that push every year for higher wages (or, inflation-adjusted wages at least, they all make a shitload compared to the rest of the world to begin with). We don't have any president (except the honorary title of president of parliament, which is really more a time-keeper job for how long people can talk), our king's job is only to look pretty, and though we did not long ago have a bicameral parliament it had never functioned de facto as one and so people abolished it as unnecessary recently. When you vote in Norway you vote once every four years and you vote in how many people of your specific party you want in the government, and then those parties get seats matching that number (let's say 15% voted socialist left, 35% labour, 30% progression party, 5% red (communist party), 10% right party, 5% left party, they get their percentage of the total of 169 seats), and the party or coalition with highest number of seats asks the king to make a government, and the king sees if the party or coalition indeed has the highest amount of votes, and then they get to form a government.

What we need urgently are win/win solutions to pressing problems; and the Unified Theory of Ethics, and the eventual Science of Ethics that will emerge, facilitate the search for such solutions. The system gives us a set of principles that can be a guide to constructive action.

Yes, unfortunately it lack sophistication and will only tell people what they already know, like a shopping list, although it doesn't lack (unfortunately) complexity.

America is interesting. of 7+ billions on eartH 7 Billion are not american.
yet they own the planet in militarty terms.
And own 1/4 of it in money terms.
they suck up 1/3 rd of all fossil fuels and from space a lit op like a lightbulb.
babylon

Then again hypothetical.
If germany had won ww2 it would be no different. But thr world would have pop of 4 billion not 7.
it would have killed 3 billion in race war kn 50's

no more Negroes or Asians.
a world swept by technology and war gas. biologic s and bullets
we live not in the best but a good compromise of possible worlds

[prof]

Here is something to think about, to reflect upon:

Ethics may be understood as the discipline which studies the transformations of morality, and the invariants over all those transformations.

Morality deals with the images of man, and the combinatorial possibilities, when diverse images of man are considered and investigated with the assistance of logic, constitute the new science.

[The Voice of Time]

The invariants are very much a welcome idea, yes. In my dealings where I speak of conditionality for instance, that remains a recurring invariant of all talks about ethics or needs, that whatever it looks like, it needs to fulfil conditions that nature set forth to achieve that given look of things.

[prof]

The invariants are very much a welcome idea, yes. ...

Thank you for your support. I also feel special gratitude toward all of my students who are open to learning and who contribute to making my life more meaningful.

Recently I was asked what motivates and inspires me.

I want to see a better world for those persons living, now and in the future. I have a dream that there could be world peace and prosperity, a world full of happy, cooperative, productive people. Everyone says "a science of ethics is impossible" and in my experience it is fun to do the "impossible." More fun than anything!

I believe some day Ethics can be a science. So I am spreading the word. Religion doesn't have to be the source of moral principles. We can have a secular ethics. A British philosopher named Henry Sidgwick, who wrote an important book in 1874, The Methods of Ethics, believed the same. He did not, though, understand what a science is as we do today. So he did not succeed in his project. His heart was in the right place though.

That project, of unifying various strands of what is taken as ethics today, and of making a science that will receive recognition as a true Science of Ethics, that is what drives me. Often it feels like an uphill battle, like we ethicists are a voice in the wilderness, yet progress is being made. Business executives - some anyway - whether through improved curricula in Business School Ethics courses, or through sessions with a Life Coach - are learning about values ...slowly but surely.

Some ethics students later become teachers. If they pick up an idea at one of these forums of philosophy, maybe they will use it in a course they teach. I plant seeds but I may not be around for the harvest; I may not see the tree grow to its maturity.

I may not have that many years left here on Earth but every now and then someone shows respect or some appreciation for what they learned. Lately it's been duszek and arising uk and hioprillar and artistic solution and diogenes. They lift me up and inspire me. You and I can learn from them.

duszek and diogenes are good role-models based upon their recent posts.

[prof]

Let me ask a very simple straight-forward question: do you actually NEED a definition?

Ask a Physicist if a definition is needed for these terms: momentum, force, velocity, tension, compression, red shift.

Those words are part of a frame-of-reference, the theory that makes Physics what it is, namely, a science. A useful theory suggests hypotheses to be tested. A useful theory of Ethics will do the same. Yes, we actually need a (a rigorous) definition of "morality." and of "freedom" and of "will" and of "altruism" and of every other central concept of ethics.

I proposed a definition of "morality." That is the least I could do.

Now, how about the rest of you defining the terms you use - so that folks don't talk past each other nor expect their listeners or readers to read their mind. Most philosophical disputes are due to each discussant using the same word in a distinctly different sense. I could cite examples if required.

[The Voice of Time]

Yes physics needs their definitions, but ethics doesn't actually need concepts like "morality". Concepts like "conformity", or "conformity to x-principle" can serve equally as good or better a job than "morality". So I don't see how we need a definition of morality when we don't even need the concept of morality itself. Ethics can perfectly survive and thrive without it, call it evolution or revolution for that sake, of the subject of ethics. Old terms disappear in the favour of new and better ones or simply old ones that have proven to be better.

[prof]

Yes physics needs their definitions, but ethics doesn't actually need concepts like "morality". ... I don't see how we need a definition of morality when we don't even need the concept of morality itself. ....

Do the rest of you agree with VOT on this?

It is true that "morality" as defined in the UTE entails the concept "correspondence with principles held" but it means (denotes) more - and connotes even more.

Let's have a poll on this. Okay?