Logic applied to Ethics thus deriving an ethical principle

[prof]

Temptation is defined as follows: submitting to short-term desires that are incompatible with long-term well-being and harmony for all concerned.

Either we know better or we don't know any better.

If we give into temptation and we know better, we are hypocrites.

If we give into temptation an we don't know any better, we are ignorant.

Derived Moral Principle: One way to avoid hypocrisy or ignorance is this: Don't give into temptations.

Don't cheat on your exams -- or on your spouse or your partner -- or on your diet.


What temptations do human beings often give in to?

Can you follow up by employing logic to arrive at any other ethical principles?



Comments? Questions?

[cavacava]

Hi prof:

What is temptation?

You have said it is "submitting to short-term desires that are incompatible with long-term well-being and harmony for all concerned".

This definition suggests prior conceptual footing, foundational concepts upon which this proposition is built...where have you demonstrated that short-term desires are incompatible "with long-term well-being and harmony for all concerned". How and why are they comparable. Are you contrasting short-term desire with long term desire or?

You also bring in "well-being" "harmony" and others into your definition. Each of these concepts are dense, they are not easily determined and they need to be described.

If you want to derive logical statements from ordinary propositions, I think, a critical regressive approach is needed where terms are brought as close to foundation ('freedom', 'determinism') and then built upon to form 'logical' statements.







All of these

[prof]

Hi prof:

...I think, a critical regressive approach is needed where terms are brought as close to foundation ... and then built upon to form 'logical' statements.

Greetings, cavacava

Ola !

Todo esta bien.

I have already done what you request, in (the first 20 pages of) ETHICS: A College Course,
http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... Course.pdf

Also upgraded in BASIC ETHICS . Have you read it yet? Did you study its fine points?
BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach (2014)
http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz

In addition, the basics were covered - more informally - in the dialog material in the four-part A Unified Theory of Ethics.

A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICShttp://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/A%20UNIFIED%20 ... ETHICS.pdf
A booklet written in dialogue form. is the first of four parts. The other three parts are :

ETHICAL ADVENTURES http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... NTURES.pdf

ETHICAL EXPLORATIONS - http://tinyurl.com/22ohd2x

And ask Google for M.C. Katz -ASPECTS OF ETHICS
This is the fourth part and it summarizes a dozen principles of ethics at the end, just before the Bibliography.

I expand upon your concerns in various of my earlier threads and posts here. Have you read them over? I can tell you have seen some of them. You may well find the answers you seek in others of those to which you have not yet given your attention. You may find it worth your while to give them a perusal ...going back to the one on ENDS AND MEANS. Especially see the one on IS-OUGHT.
I hold that we are free, that spontaneous events occur, that "determinism" belongs to the Extrinsic realm, the cause/effect perspective; while spontaneity, creativity, individuality, emergence belong to the Intrinsic way of experiencing things. [Logical sorites are defined as: Systemic process. Cause & Effect comprise Extrinsic process; and spontaneity, etc., are Intrinsic processes.]

A. N. Whitehead was right in his emphasis on Process Philosophy, and Husserl was right in his Phenomenology (being aware of various possible perspectives on the same topic.) So when the basic, primitive, concept "process" is analyzed by means of the three value perspectives, S, E, and I, we get three definitions: S: Sorites {deductive chains of reasoning}; E: Cause/Effect; and I: Freedom and spontaneity.

When "Freedom" is analyzed this way, by using the three basic value dimensions contributed to us by Dr. Robert S. Hartman, we get:
S: Freedom of thought. E: Freedom of movement; I: Freedom of conscience.

Each of these has lots of implications !!!

[Ginkgo]

Temptation is defined as follows: submitting to short-term desires that are incompatible with long-term well-being and harmony for all concerned.

Either we know better or we don't know any better.

If we give into temptation and we know better, we are hypocrites.

If we give into temptation an we don't know any better, we are ignorant.

Derived Moral Principle: One way to avoid hypocrisy or ignorance is this: Don't give into temptations.

Don't cheat on your exams -- or on your spouse or your partner -- or on your diet.


What temptations do human beings often give in to?

Can you follow up by employing logic to arrive at any other ethical principles?



Comments? Questions?

Hi prof,


Sound a lot like Kantian ethics to me.

[prof]

Is that good or bad?

It's not quite accurate, as my Ethics is a synthesis of many, many schools of thought.
You are right, in that there is some of Kant in there. He would recognize it, and appreciate it. Ethics learned from him. However, it has gone far beyond that.

So Ginko, from what you have seen of it so far, what do you think of the whole package?

[Ginkgo]

Is that good or bad?

It's not quite accurate, as my Ethics is a synthesis of many, many schools of thought.
You are right, in that there is some of Kant in there. He would recognize it, and appreciate it. Ethics learned from him. However, it has gone far beyond that.

So Ginko, from what you have seen of it so far, what do you think of the whole package?

I am a fan of Kant in many different ways- Kantian ethics being one of my favorites. So I'll say it is all pretty good. I'll read the links in your post and get back to you.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




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



...............What!?...What is this temptation you speak of?




.

[tbieter]

.




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



...............What!?...What is this temptation you speak of?




.

[HexHammer]

cavacava

It's kinda futile to have a serious dialogue with prof, as he must have had a massive stroke at some time, thus has a logic of a small child, but can indeed parrot on university lvl, but can't correlate any principles to make a sound argument.

If you read closely all of his writings are essentially nonsense and babble.

You can come with all the best arguments in the World for an eternity, but he will never comprehend anything you say.

[prof]

.


Optimism is a political act. Those who benefit from the status quo are perfectly happy for us to think nothing is going to get better. In fact, these days cynicism is obedience. --- Alex Steffen

[prof]

Hi prof:

What is temptation?

You have said it is "submitting to short-term desires that are incompatible with long-term well-being and harmony for all concerned".

...You ...bring in "well-being" "harmony" and others into your definition. Each of these concepts are dense, they are not easily determined

I, for one, recognize well-being and harmony when I experience it. ...But that's just me.

I would say to any critic: if you don't like my definition of a concept, then offer us a better one.

I may just end up adopting yours - if it obviously is superior to my tentative efforts to find a good definition of a term in Ethics. I'm easy!


p.s. It looks like Bill is ready to submit to a short-term desire - but is that woman in his picture ready to submit to him??
Think about it, Bill: are you willing to hurt your wife - for the momentary fling? I have always considered you to be a man of fine values ...so I doubt you want to hurt anyone.

I know a troll would do so, for he has managed to desensitize his conscience. ...Has anyone seen a troll around here?