A chat with a philosophical layman about Ethics

[prof]

In the following discussion the letter E will stand for: Ethicist – by which is meant ‘a teacher of Ethics’ – perhaps a professional who gets paid to teach it; or a researcher in the field. And the letter L will symbolize ‘a philosophical layman.’

E: Do you mind if I talk theory for a moment?

L: No, go ahead.

E: You’ve heard the expression “to live a moral life.” What do you suppose it means? What does it mean to live a moral life?

L: I dunno. You tell me.

E: It means Be true to yourself. Shakespeare, in the year 1510, knew the truth of this. He said: To thine own self be true… Yet how does one be true?
By having some good principles; and living up to them ! Okay?

L: Okay. I'll go with that.

E: Logically, the question then arises: What makes a principle a good one? How can we tell what a good moral principle is?

L: How?

E: Good question! You have a healthy curiosity!! What makes a principle a good one? Well, it’s richer in values than other principles and it fulfills its purpose. So you might ask: What’s the purpose of a principle? And I would answer: A good set of principles helps us live harmoniously with other people – both in our family and in society. It enables us to avoid quarrels even before they start. It shows us how to get along with other members of our human species; how to have sweeter cooperation to solve our problems. Can we agree that a principle that does that is “a good” one?

L: Yeah. I guess so. You're telling me that to live a moral life we need to have some high principles and put them into practice.

E: Exactly !! You get it. That's what I mean if I use the term "morality." Earlier I mentioned the feature “richer in value” when we were discussing how to tell the difference among principles. That’s how we tell something is better: it has more qualities than what you are comparing it with, doesn’t it? A good moral principle would have everything a moral principle should have. …It would put people first – over things and stuff. And it would give a higher priority to things and material than it would give to numbers and passing thoughts of the mind. Good principles show us which way is “up.” They help us get our priorities straight. Okay?

L: Yes.

E: You're right. Once we have a good set of moral principles we know that all the systems and ideologies in the world aren't worth one material thing; and all the things in the world aren't worth one human life !
Any questions? Do you see why we should care about living a moral life? How do you feel about all this? -- I’m listening…..

--------

E: So let's go beyond theory now, and I'll ask you a practical question:
Do you want a better quality of life than you have now? ...Here's one way to get it ...

As Pete Demerest, a wise man, once told us: ""Beyond survival, the goal is to thrive – to go beyond just staying alive and to increase quality of life. Since your brain is already wired to think in terms of creating value, you've already got what it takes. All you need are the keys to help you take full advantage of how your brain naturally works so you make better decisions and take more effective actions more often." I have to agree with him. He's right.

And I would add this: If we can master our mind, perhaps we can think, learn, and act in new and better ways.

We know, in our hearts, that we can't truly maximize the quality of our own lives unless we maximize the quality of other people's lives as well. From this perspective, quality of life -- and life itself -- is not just about 'my own narrow self'; it’s about all of us. Life is fundamentally about creating value and our conscience knows it! So let's figure out how to create more and better value! And let's put policies into effect that do that! What do you think?





Comments? Critiques? Concepts? Suggestions?

[tbieter]

In the following discussion the letter E will stand for: Ethicist – by which is meant ‘a teacher of Ethics’ – perhaps a professional who gets paid to teach it; or a researcher in the field. And the letter L will symbolize ‘a philosophical layman.’

E: Do you mind if I talk theory for a moment?

L: No, go ahead.

E: You’ve heard the expression “to live a moral life.” What do you suppose it means? What does it mean to live a moral life?

L: I dunno. You tell me.

E: It means Be true to yourself. Shakespeare, in the year 1510, knew the truth of this. He said: To thine own self be true… Yet how does one be true?
By having some good principles; and living up to them ! Okay?
A burglar can believe in the PRINCIPLE of BURGLARY (definition: entering a building without the consent of the owner with an intent to steal property) He can believe that burglary is a means to earn his livelihood.

L: Okay. I'll go with that.

E: Logically, the question then arises: What makes a principle a good one? How can we tell what a good moral principle is?

L: How?

E: Good question! You have a healthy curiosity!! What makes a principle a good one? Well, it’s richer in values than other principles and it fulfills its purpose. One morning I went to the jail at about 8:00 a.m. to meet a new client who was charged with burglary. He was sleeping. The guard had to wake him. He was unhappy at being awakened. He said that I was a fool to slave to earn a taxable income to support a wife and kids. In contrast, he slept late each morning and only worked a few nights and earned a sufficient tax-free income. He lived with divorced or single women with kids. Whenever they talked marriage or otherwise angered him, he would leave. He could always find another woman who would take him in.
So you might ask: What’s the purpose of a principle? And I would answer: A good set of principles helps us live harmoniously with other people – both in our family and in society. It enables us to avoid quarrels even before they start. It shows us how to get along with other members of our human species; how to have sweeter cooperation to solve our problems. Except for the owner of the property that my client stole, my burglar/client PLEASURED MANY WOMEN AND THEIR KIDS, more or less, and lived in harmony with others.

iS IT REASONABLE TO SAY THAT HE WAS LIVING "A MORAL LIFE?" On E's reasoning, the ANSWER is that the BURGLAR IS LIVING A MORAL LIFE!

Whats the purpose of a principle? To the scholastics, a principle was "a basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct;" A human being has a right to own property. Theft is the taking of such property from the owner without his consent . Theft is wrong.

Which principle is better: BURGLARY OR PRIVATE PROPERTY?
Can we agree that a principle that does that is “a good” one?

L: Yeah. I guess so. You're telling me that to live a moral life we need to have some high principles and put them into practice.

E: Exactly !! You get it. That's what I mean if I use the term "morality." Earlier I mentioned the feature “richer in value” when we were discussing how to tell the difference among principles. That’s how we tell something is better: it has more qualities than what you are comparing it with, doesn’t it? A good moral principle would have everything a moral principle should have. …It would put people first – over things and stuff. And it would give a higher priority to things and material than it would give to numbers and passing thoughts of the mind. Good principles show us which way is “up.” They help us get our priorities straight. Okay?

L: Yes.

E: You're right. Once we have a good set of moral principles we know that all the systems and ideologies in the world aren't worth one material thing; and all the things in the world aren't worth one human life !
Any questions? Do you see why we should care about living a moral life? How do you feel about all this? -- I’m listening…..



Comments? Critiques? Concepts? Suggestions?

a starting point for reasoning

principle - a basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct;
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/principle

[prof]

I wrote in the original post: " A good set of principles helps us live harmoniously with other people in society, and to foster sweeter cooperation to solve problems. ... we can't truly maximize the quality of our own lives unless we maximize the quality of other people's lives as well."

How, in the name of heaven, does burglary fit in with that?

Burglary IS a problem - a problem to solve. How can someone misunderstand so blatantly what Ethics is about??? Did he just fail to read the rest of the Unified Theory, and thus take things out of context? Or is it more serious?

Why, for what purpose, does a critic pretend that burglary does no harm? Harming is a direct violation of the meaning of Ethics - which is that each individual (including a property-owner) is to be Intrinsically valued. {This point was made in many of my threads here.}

How can one In-value individuals and still hurt them deliberately?

That burglar should be fined several hundred dollars more than his take was priced (at fair market value), and if he can't pay, is to be jailed for Grand Theft. While in jail he should be trained in some useful skill with a view to showing him there are better ways to make money that don't involve living in jail for a period of time. He should, perhaps, not be released until a panel of psychologists are 70% confident that he is rehabbed. [All this is on the premiss that we care about people, and thus are aware that rehabilitation is to be the major aim of the (so-called Retributive) Justice System. The system, ethically, is to be devoted to Remedial Justice.]

tbieter,

How did you serve your client? Did you offer any defense? What was the disposition of the case?

[henry quirk]

"A good set of principles helps us live harmoniously with other people in society, and to foster sweeter cooperation to solve problems. ... we can't truly maximize the quality of our own lives unless we maximize the quality of other people's lives as well."

For some, 'maximizing of the 'quality of living' comes from successfully navigating others, not 'cooperating' with them.


The problem, Prof, with your dialog is this: to live a moral life means be true to yourself (as long as you "live harmoniously", and 'cooperate sweetly')...in your set up, an ethic (a codified opinion or preference) trumps the individual, which is absurd.

[Ginkgo]

In the following discussion the letter E will stand for: Ethicist – by which is meant ‘a teacher of Ethics’ – perhaps a professional who gets paid to teach it; or a researcher in the field. And the letter L will symbolize ‘a philosophical layman.’

E: Do you mind if I talk theory for a moment?

L: No, go ahead.

E: You’ve heard the expression “to live a moral life.” What do you suppose it means? What does it mean to live a moral life?

L: I dunno. You tell me.

E: It means Be true to yourself. Shakespeare, in the year 1510, knew the truth of this. He said: To thine own self be true… Yet how does one be true?
By having some good principles; and living up to them ! Okay?

L: Okay. I'll go with that.

E: Logically, the question then arises: What makes a principle a good one? How can we tell what a good moral principle is?

L: How?

E: Good question! You have a healthy curiosity!! What makes a principle a good one? Well, it’s richer in values than other principles and it fulfills its purpose. So you might ask: What’s the purpose of a principle? And I would answer: A good set of principles helps us live harmoniously with other people – both in our family and in society. It enables us to avoid quarrels even before they start. It shows us how to get along with other members of our human species; how to have sweeter cooperation to solve our problems. Can we agree that a principle that does that is “a good” one?

L: Yeah. I guess so. You're telling me that to live a moral life we need to have some high principles and put them into practice.

E: Exactly !! You get it. That's what I mean if I use the term "morality." Earlier I mentioned the feature “richer in value” when we were discussing how to tell the difference among principles. That’s how we tell something is better: it has more qualities than what you are comparing it with, doesn’t it? A good moral principle would have everything a moral principle should have. …It would put people first – over things and stuff. And it would give a higher priority to things and material than it would give to numbers and passing thoughts of the mind. Good principles show us which way is “up.” They help us get our priorities straight. Okay?

L: Yes.

E: You're right. Once we have a good set of moral principles we know that all the systems and ideologies in the world aren't worth one material thing; and all the things in the world aren't worth one human life !
Any questions? Do you see why we should care about living a moral life? How do you feel about all this? -- I’m listening…..

--------

E: So let's go beyond theory now, and I'll ask you a practical question:
Do you want a better quality of life than you have now? ...Here's one way to get it ...

As Pete Demerest, a wise man, once told us: ""Beyond survival, the goal is to thrive – to go beyond just staying alive and to increase quality of life. Since your brain is already wired to think in terms of creating value, you've already got what it takes. All you need are the keys to help you take full advantage of how your brain naturally works so you make better decisions and take more effective actions more often." I have to agree with him. He's right.

And I would add this: If we can master our mind, perhaps we can think, learn, and act in new and better ways.

We know, in our hearts, that we can't truly maximize the quality of our own lives unless we maximize the quality of other people's lives as well. From this perspective, quality of life -- and life itself -- is not just about 'my own narrow self'; it’s about all of us. Life is fundamentally about creating value and our conscience knows it! So let's figure out how to create more and better value! And let's put policies into effect that do that! What do you think?





Comments? Critiques? Concepts? Suggestions?

Prof, you don't think that you are starting out with a normative position and then switching to a denontological position?

[tbieter]

I wrote in the original post: " A good set of principles helps us live harmoniously with other people in society, and to foster sweeter cooperation to solve problems. ... we can't truly maximize the quality of our own lives unless we maximize the quality of other people's lives as well."

How, in the name of heaven, does burglary fit in with that?

Burglary IS a problem - a problem to solve. How can someone misunderstand so blatantly what Ethics is about??? Did he just fail to read the rest of the Unified Theory, and thus take things out of context? Or is it more serious? My client's chosen vocation was burglary and theft. For him burglary and theft was not a problem, but a means to earn a living. His primary principle or value was his individual liberty. He saw the night-time burglary and theft as a nonviolent act, THUS, CONSISTENT WITH YOUR ETHIC - VALUING THE PROPERTY-OWNER'S SAFETY OVER THE OWNER'S PROPERTY.

Why, for what purpose, does a critic pretend that burglary does no harm? Harming is a direct violation of the meaning of Ethics - which is that each individual (including a property-owner) is to be Intrinsically valued. {This point was made in many of my threads here.} I suspect that my client would concede that the owner would suffer a harm. But he did value people over property. He would not have committed an armed robbery (confronting the owner of property with a dangerous weapon (gun or knife) "Stand an deliver. Your money or your life" He would not take the risk of harming the owner, a risk that is inherent in the act of armed robbery, but not inherent in the night-time act of burglary and theft.

How can one In-value individuals and still hurt them deliberately? My client considered the non-violent theft of property to be a minor wrongful act. Not infrequently, a thief/client would contest harming the owner if it was likely that the property taken was covered by INSURANCE.

I've tried to show that my client, consistent with your ethic, was arguably living a moral life, more or less. From my perspective, however, he was not because THEFT IS A MORAL WRONG. I agree with John Finnis that theft is wrong, a moral absolute. see pp. 27-28, Moral Absolutes - Tradition, Revision, and Truth.
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Absolutes-T ... +absolutes

That burglar should be fined several hundred dollars more than his take was priced (at fair market value), and if he can't pay, is to be jailed for Grand Theft. While in jail he should be trained in some useful skill with a view to showing him there are better ways to make money that don't involve living in jail for a period of time. He should, perhaps, not be released until a panel of psychologists are 70% confident that he is rehabbed. [All this is on the premiss that we care about people, and thus are aware that rehabilitation is to be the major aim of the (so-called Retributive) Justice System. The system, ethically, is to be devoted to Remedial Justice.] But, my client was not interested in being rehabilitated. prof, should he be punished? If so, how should he be punished? If not, why not?

tbieter,

How did you serve your client? Did you offer any defense? What was the disposition of the case?

As I recall, he had no defense, so he asked me to get him the best plea bargain that I could get. Many clients would ask for a plea bargain that would send them to the local St. Louis County Work (the food was outstanding) farm for a year plus probation thereafter rather than to the state prison for several years plus parole thereafter. I think that I succeeded with this client, but I'm not sure.

[HexHammer]

LOoOOoooOong talkative post about excatly nothing, it could in princip be the start for anything, a sales speech about yoga or wellness.

Didn't have a tiny piece of actual ethics.

[tbieter]

LOoOOoooOong talkative post about excatly nothing, it could in princip be the start for anything, a sales speech about yoga or wellness.

Didn't have a tiny piece of actual ethics.

Where is your contribution to this thread? Or to any other thread on ethics?

[HexHammer]

LOoOOoooOong talkative post about excatly nothing, it could in princip be the start for anything, a sales speech about yoga or wellness.

Didn't have a tiny piece of actual ethics.

Where is your contribution to this thread? Or to any other thread on ethics?

I have known this prof for many years, he must have had a massive stroke at some point thus he doesn't comprehend simple logic. Reasoning with him is futile.

He will for an eternity leech of others to do his work, which he can't do himself.

It would be a fools errand to cast pearls before him, not only will he not understand the importaince, nor the relevance or irrelevance of what has been presented and thus foul everything up.

[tbieter]

LOoOOoooOong talkative post about excatly nothing, it could in princip be the start for anything, a sales speech about yoga or wellness.

Didn't have a tiny piece of actual ethics.

Where is your contribution to this thread? Or to any other thread on ethics?

I have known this prof for many years, he must have had a massive stroke at some point thus he doesn't comprehend simple logic. Reasoning with him is futile.

He will for an eternity leech of others to do his work, which he can't do himself.

It would be a fools errand to cast pearls before him, not only will he not understand the importaince, nor the relevance or irrelevance of what has been presented and thus foul everything up.

I think that a retired professor of philosophy is entitled to respect, especially by younger members of a philosophy forum. And if his mind is impaired, he is entitled to be treated with kindness.

[HexHammer]

I think that a retired professor of philosophy is entitled to respect, especially by younger members of a philosophy forum. And if his mind is impaired, he is entitled to be treated with kindness.

Respect comes from skill, not ones title, specially when someone ask people to do the work in his place and has zero skills oneself.

So, don't give me that useless nonsense! This is a philosophy forum, where we do philosophy, to run a fool's errand isn't philosophy, very simple logic!

[tbieter]

I think that a retired professor of philosophy is entitled to respect, especially by younger members of a philosophy forum. And if his mind is impaired, he is entitled to be treated with kindness.

Respect comes from skill, not ones title, specially when someone ask people to do the work in his place and has zero skills oneself.

So, don't give me that useless nonsense! This is a philosophy forum, where we do philosophy, to run a fool's errand isn't philosophy, very simple logic!

We disagree. I believe that the virtue of pietas is ethically due to the person of prof unconditionally. You reduce profes personhood to a utility and then dismiss on an alleged lack of performance.

[HexHammer]

We disagree. I believe that the virtue of pietas is ethically due to the person of prof unconditionally. You reduce profes personhood to a utility and then dismiss on an alleged lack of performance.

As of now you are actually saying that philosophy has no purpose other than mental mastubation, if it had a purpose, you would dismiss prof's nonsens and babble and if it was in a buisness, he would be fired right away.

If something can't produce a useful result, it has no purpose, thus being irrelevant.

[prof]

It would avoid committing a Fallacy of Method to keep straight in our minds the difference between theory (analysis) and practice (action.) This is a Forum on Ethical Theory.

Some folks who commit that fallacy all the time, because of fuzzy thinking are likely to complain that Botany smells. You see, it studies roses, and the flowers smell. These characters are not capable of distinguishing the science from its subject matter. [IF THE SHOE DOESN'T FIT, DON'T WEAR IT.]

In an effort to make Hex Hammer happy, I shall delve here into Applied Ethics and recommend that readers take some action. Get involved Apply your understanding of Ethics

Sign up with: Roots Action - http://rootsaction.org/

Move to Amend. https://movetoamend.org/‎

MoveOn.Org | Democracy In Action - http://www.moveon.org/

The Campaign for America's Future - http://action.ourfuture.org

Work on relieving global extreme climate-change and severe weather-related events - http://climaterealityproject.org/

[prof]

Inspired by T. McKamey, I proposed a World Constitution and presented it in BASIC ETHICS - http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz

Some folks {among whom may be included psychopaths - though in the world they comprise a 2 per cent minority} violate Article One of that document continually.

It would benefit everyone to review and study comprehensively the brief paper BASIC ETHICS, a pamphlet which has many applications to the ethical life. It touches on the Justice system, on political policies, on self-development, on how to live ethically by adding value at every opportunity. In the business world people get promoted for adding value. In the moral life we get a more-ethical world by creating value in our personal relationships.

For examples: Burglary subtracts value. Love adds value.


Your comments?