Presenting the best argument for ethics

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

prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Presenting the best argument for ethics

Post by prof »

If one is ethical one will NOT cheat: one will not enter into gain/loss relationships where one party gains at the expense of another - by dishonesty, cutting corners, deliberately engaging in bait-and-switch, falsification, con artistry, etc. - because it results in hurting someone. Cheating does harm (to the cheated.) If you cheat someone you are diminishing value. You thereby dishonor yourself. Robbery, for example, subtracts value; love adds value. Are you with me so far?

Now you might ask: Why not harm? Because a human life has value, that's why. Isn't it so that every individual is unique? {Even identical twins differ in some respect from one another. One twin has features that the other does not have which their immediate family, or one who knows them very well, can perceive. The more qualities someone or something has, the more meaningful it is; and to be meaningful is to have value.} If we can agree that a conscious human life has value -- [and that happens to be the case by the very definition of Ethics, as explained in some detail in my previous threads and posts here.] -- hen science can provide policies that minimize suffering and maximize value for the enhancement of life. We can turn to science to learn best practices to help conscious individuals thrive - not merely survive. Don't you want more than bare survival? Once you know your Ethics, you're okay with caring. sharing, and cooperating.

Ethics is about maximizing value for one and all. So let's figure out how, at every opportunity, to create value, how to be constructive, how to upgrade, improve, build on, uplift, boost individuals and groups of individuals. When we get our priorities straight we will aim for social justice, happiness, practical wisdom, a quality life, a state of optimum well-being. Okay? So if you form the haabit of creating positive value, you then will want to avoid personal corruption and you will choose long-term well-being over short-term temptation. You'll see things from an Ethical perspective.

In the U.S.A. we have, among others, two major problems. The first is that money has become an end, not a means to some worthwhile end. Money is idolized as an end rather than as a means: The most important thing to many people is: "How much money will it make? " This is known as Materialism. This holds back progress.

The second problem is that the powers-that-be want to maintain a status quo situation. Their attitude is, in effect, "Don't rock the boat while I'm comfortable!" They see no point in change. Yet people suffer; there is extreme misery. This is a violation of the moral obligation we have to relieve suffering when possible - for all the reasons presented earlier. This conservatism - as well as materialism - is a problem to solve. Now we are addressing Social Ethics. There is a simple solution that will likely result in the U.S.A. being loved and respected around the globe, a solution that could well turn enemies into friends. The proposal is for the U.S. government to spend $200 billion with the aim of making sure that no one on the planet is hungry. The policy goal would be to eliminate starvation wherever it is found. We Americans can demand that our public officials pursue this goal, and thus put ethics into practice.

The same applies to gun safety - the registration and licensing of guns; and for immigration reform. If we want people to live a life free of intimidation, to come in out of the shadows, to have a quality life, to contribute to society without fear - and polls show most Americans do want this - then some of us will engage in nonviolent direct action, in demonstrations, to show that they really mean it. We will support those who are morally active every way we can. This is Applied Ethics at its best.

Comments? Questions?
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Presenting the best argument for ethics

Post by HexHammer »

At last someting with substance!

You need to reason that it's wrong to cheat because the victime can become depressed, and vengeful, such is not only bad for the relationship, but society too. Severly depressed people are less productive and less focused thus can create accidents, etc.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Presenting the best argument for ethics

Post by prof »

Welcome aboard, Hex !

O, what a relief it is to see a destroyer transform into a builder.

:D Stay a sweet as you are !!!!!!!!!!!

Since to cooperate is to be ethical, we can now grade Hex as having a high Humanity Quotient.


Congratulations :!: :!:







"We need to be able to trust others not to hurt us, and they need to trust us. It's the only sane way to live. ...That's another reason why we need ethics."
Last edited by prof on Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Presenting the best argument for ethics

Post by HexHammer »

prof wrote:Since to cooperate is to be ethical, we can now grade Hex as having a high Humanity Quotient.
Don't be so quick to judge.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Presenting the best argument for ethics

Post by prof »

The rating is dated and indexed.

It reflects one moment in time.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Presenting the best argument for ethics

Post by prof »

Conversing with the common man :

In deciding whether any conduct or behavior is ethical, we can conclude that if it protects survival and well being - if it contributes to a Quality Life - it is good; if it makes survival and well being more difficult it is evil.

The worst society would be one in which everyone is suffering and miserable, and no one can trust anyone else - and any society that's better than that is going in the right direction. The direction we want to aim for is greater cooperation, greater acceptance of one another, tolerance, working together as brothers and sisters, with community or family spirit, to solve real problems that need to be solved !

Can we agree on that?
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Presenting the best argument for ethics

Post by HexHammer »

prof wrote:Conversing with the common man :

In deciding whether any conduct or behavior is ethical, we can conclude that if it protects survival and well being - if it contributes to a Quality Life - it is good; if it makes survival and well being more difficult it is evil.

The worst society would be one in which everyone is suffering and miserable, and no one can trust anyone else - and any society that's better than that is going in the right direction. The direction we want to aim for is greater cooperation, greater acceptance of one another, tolerance, working together as brothers and sisters, with community or family spirit, to solve real problems that need to be solved !

Can we agree on that?
No we can't!

What you say is pure nonsense. In Denmark we have too much wealfare, meaning some actually can get more wealth doing nothing, than those who try to start a buisness or work their ass off at very low wages. So for many it simply have no meaning to work, which many left wing political parties can't and refuse to realize.
One must work before being able to get benefits!

With too much wealfare, we create sickly narcissistic and lazy people, selfcenterd and spoiled. Suffering will constitute examples and scare off lazy people.
We have the worst school system, because of lazy kids, who just wanna get wealfare after school, spoiled and unruly, spit people in their faces when they are opposed with reason.

Your recent post here, containing scribtures that does not in any way relate to the real world's problem's and how to corretly deal with them.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Presenting the best argument for ethics

Post by prof »

A principle of my system is: No rights without responsibility :!: This, when applied, would mean: No right to a a government benefit without the recipient showing that s/he is ready to be responsible - in some way - to take on some sort of responsibility.

If the Danish government gave out food (to, say, able-bodied young people who are not busy adding to their skill-sets and/or knowledge base) without this sort of screening first, then it was a poorly-designed program; and citizens ought to lobby and petition their elected officials to modify the program for the better.

I agree with Hex that every recipient of help ought to work or contribute to society in some way, as a requirement of aid - unless they are children, the aged, or totally disabled. Even the handicapped can contribute ...in some way.

I believe we can sense a gap here: when Hex speaks about relating "to the real world's problem's and how to corretly [sic] deal with them" he has in mind Applied Ethics, whereas this is a forum on Ethical Theory; thus it is appropriate to deal here with generalities, formal structure, system construction, and other topics relevant to theory-building. He has set himself up to speak for the proverbial "man in the street." {I will leave it to you to figure out why....}
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Presenting the best argument for ethics

Post by prof »

I would remind readers that in the original post of this thread, toward the end of it, I mentioned several concrete policy goals. Here is the quote:

" The policy goal would be to eliminate starvation wherever it is found. We ... can demand that our public officials pursue this goal, and thus put ethics into practice.

The same applies to gun safety - the registration and licensing of guns; and for immigration reform. If we want people to live a life free of intimidation, to come in out of the shadows, to have a quality life, to contribute to society without fear - and polls show most Americans do want this - then some of us will engage in nonviolent direct action, in demonstrations, to show that they really mean it. We will support those who are morally active every way we can. This is Applied Ethics at its best."

Also, as the system explains, our direction is clear: if a policy contributes toward a Quality Life (optimum well-being) for one and all, then DO IT. If it does not, or if it detracts from that, AVOID IT !!

While political satire is okay, calling people names, or putting others down, ridiculing, etc. diminishes the achievement of a Quality Life for all. So do power plays, efforts to control, snobbery, condescension, paternalism, imperialism. Avoid prejudice; and avoid psychological and physical abuse. Think long-term as well as short-term; be careful to stay healthy. Make someone happy. Be constructive and stay positive. Have an attitude of gratitude.

Thank you all :!:
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Presenting the best argument for ethics

Post by prof »

In the original post I wrote this: " When we get our priorities straight we will aim for social justice, happiness, practical wisdom, a quality life, a state of optimum well-being."

Then, I got more specific when I said "So if you form the habit of creating positive value, you then will want to avoid personal corruption and you will choose long-term well-being over short-term temptation. You'll see things from an Ethical perspective." Then in the last three paragraphs I got even more concrete and specific.

I want to now put a little more emphasis on the initial phrase in that statement above where I said something about priorities.

The trouble with the human race - or at least those of us who have achieved a certain level of comfort and security - is that we don’t know what to do first :!: Knowing what to do first is called ‘setting priorities. When we set priorities correctly we decide what most urgently needs to be done? Then. given the resources we have at our disposal, we may ask: What can we do with a single-minded focus, that will use our resources most effectively, to take care of the most-urgent problems first, in a step-by-step manner?

This suggests that we ought to work to gain a consensus on what is of highest priority, or what set of grievous problems are among the top few to which to attend.
There will, of course, be some disagreement as to which policy goal is most urgent; if you just lost a child to gun violence you will say: Gun control is our No. 1 priority. If you are out of work, you will say: Provide jobs (that use my skills.)

In order to reach consensus on a goal, it may be wise to employ modern techniques of poll-taking combined with best methods of consensus-building – auch as the” Syncon” concept (once pioneered by Barbara Hubbard). SYNCON refers to: conferences for SYNergistic CONvergence. These advanced, multi-media, multi-disciplinary events brought diverse people from every field and function together in a wheel shaped environment to seek common goals and match needs with resources. To initiate these conferences in every state it takes a little money.

Perhaps a Foundation would be interested in setting up some of these conferences on an experimental basis. It would be interesting to learn of what is the one goal on which people of all backgrounds and convictions can agree needs immediate attention. A non-profit outfit ought to apply for a grant for this purpose.

Once we have arrived at such a goal, then the next logical questions are: What steps lead to that goal and in what order? And in what reasonable space of time? Can what is known about Critical Path management be of help. This teaches us that to shorten the time to complete a project, fast tracking can be used. It is defined as the performing of activities on the path to the goal in parallel; or the time to reach the goal can also be shortened by adding resources.


Was this at all helpful?

What do philosophers - those concerned with applying Ethics - say about this? Give us your comments, and do some philosophical analysis in this area.

I'm looking forward to hearing what readers here - except those who dump on every post - have to say.

.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Presenting the best argument for ethics

Post by prof »

I would like to take a poll:

1) What do you consider to be the most urgent problem facing the human species right now?

2) What is most urgent for your nation? Which nation is it?


Let's hear from you!

Please respond to the questions. - Thanks.
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: Presenting the best argument for ethics

Post by Blaggard »

1) Government and its vices. Democracy as it stands in our country. This political landscape of course meets out all the other landscapes so it is vital it is done properly.

2) UK and we are losing faith in it; at the last general election less than a third of the population turned out to vote, we now believe that government serves only its own interest and there is little reason to vote in another bloated bureaucrat to promote his selfish ideals for the betterment of his cronies. At least generally I can't speak for the whole nation but we are seemingly generally fed up with it...

I agree with your OP by the way, I think now money is a means to end all ends. Banks are temples in which we pray, and many countries are hence bowed down in worship to the holy lord their currency, Amen. It sickens me no end. And I am not a communist, but when you see stupidity you have to say that's fucking clown shoes... :)

what's the point in rocking a boat that is already sinking, we are all going to drown, it seems facile hence to rock at all, we should hence sit still and await our demise, as one does when one pushes off from sure await a new orizon, if not a new horizon, we set off by such means to find something better, we find something better and we spoil it, it seems an endless game of as you say bait and switch.

The Titanic sank, it was claimed it was unsinkable: on its maiden voyage it perished with only a few hundred survivors we should perhaps take note of such hubris.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Presenting the best argument for ethics

Post by prof »

Blaggard wrote:1) Government and its vices. Democracy as it stands in our country. This political landscape of course meets out all the other landscapes so it is vital it is done properly.....

I agree with your OP by the way, I think now money is a means to [[an] end....
Greetings, Blaggard

Here is a suggestion: Go to the administrator of the alliance of Workers Cooperative and propose to him, or them, that they find someone who is willing to run for public office, who strongly believes in what they are doing, and that they allow you to set up a get-out-the-vote project to elect this candidate.

You volunteer to set up this campaign by soliciting the membership of the alliance to go out and vote for this individual who sincerely and wholeheartedly represents their interests.



To All Readers:


1) What do you consider to be the most urgent problem facing the human species right now?

2) What is most urgent for your nation? Which nation is it?

Let's hear from you!

Please respond to the questions. - Thanks.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Presenting the best argument for ethics

Post by HexHammer »

Amazing how a allerged professor needs to have very basic questions answerd by mere mortals.
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: Presenting the best argument for ethics

Post by Blaggard »

HexHammer wrote:Amazing how a allerged professor needs to have very basic questions answerd by mere mortals.
Hex asking questions is not a demonstration of weakness, it is an admission of not knowing everything. In this case he's trying to make a point by offering a question whereby he will offer an answer that denotes his own original purpose. I am not sure you get this, I am not sure why, but you must look more closely at motivation and the method by which people use it to make their points meet an end, if not you are going to fail at logic. I am of course sure you are not an idiot although you haven't solved my Alexander grape problem yet, but you are not either wise by your actions.

Incidentally I am stupidly rich which is why I can sit at my keyboard having retired at the age of 42, if you do want an incentive involving money to solve the grape problem just ask. As a stupidly rich person who made millions out of stocks, I am more than willing to oblige. :)

And also invest in English banks atm, they's going to go up so fast it is not funny. :)

Damn fine idea by the way prof I have more money than sense, and I am wondering what to do with the capital. Helping out my fellow man seems a rational solution in regards to the above. I will of course do so in my own time, I hate having more money than sense, I wish I had more sense than money, time will out. :)
Post Reply