Moral truths and the ethical life

[prof]

Here is a fact about human nature: our brains
are prewired to seek out what is in our self-interest.
The problem is that we often don’t know what
actually is in our self-interest. For example, we fail
to gain the benefits that cooperation would yield for
us. Allow me to explain.

Science informs us that we survived as a
species (instead of becoming extinct as so many,
many other species have) because we learned to
cooperate on projects that we could not handle
alone. We set a goal to erect a bridge across a river
or to build a residence and we realized that the
project was too big to do by ourselves so we
enlisted the cooperation of others and we got it
done. There are benefits to cooperation. Many of
us are not aware of these benefits; we thus often do
things that are not in our true self-interest. It is a
moral truth that today we need more cooperation on
worthwhile goals that enhance the quality of human
life.

Ethics is concerned with how to live a good life,
how to be a good person, how to live the optimal
life, how to live well as we provide a quality life
for all. When we engage in self-defeating and counter-
productive behavior we are doing things that are no
t in our self-interest. In this new approach to Ethics
self-defeating behavior may be described as
conduct that rates a low degree on the morality
scale; or a low rank on a social happiness index.

Examples of such conduct would be violence,
ruthless exploitation (such as
holding slaves, or murder, or rape, , or even
disregarding worker safety standards.) Cheating
others, baiting and switching, engaging in angry
quarreling, polluting the planet which we all
inhabit, these are also forms of unethical conduct.

Ethics is concerned with harmonious human
relationships, and how to achieve them. There are
axioms in that body of useful knowledge named
“Ethics,” and logical deductions can be made from
those basic assumptions, those axioms. In the theory
governing ethics one learns about Ethical Fallacies,
which are mistakes in thinking with regard to moral
topics and moral practice.

What are the basic assumptions? Some values
are more valuable than others. How can we tell the
better from the worse? It has been shown by a
logical demonstration, a proof, that one
individual, having individuality, seen as ‘unique,’
is worth more than all the things in this world, and that one
material thing is worth more than all the babble, the
theories and systems and ideologies; a person is
worth more than a thing, and a thing is worth more
than a number. As we know, a thing can rust out
and be discarded; and a number can be erased.
Human life, though, is valuable, uncountably
valuable. That’s why it is wrong to murder or rape.,
or to connive and exploit, to enslave and deceive.

Those who understand these relationships can
be said to “know their values.” Once you know
your Ethics you will put people first. Then far be
low you will rank materialism and ostentatious
consumption. And you will also realize that
systems, dogmas, opinions rather than facts and
evidence, isms, labels, and stereotypes have the
lowest positive value to us.

For more information, further detzails, see: http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf

[-1-]

Here is a fact about human nature: our brains
are prewired to seek out what is in our self-interest.
The problem is that we often don’t know what
actually is in our self-interest. For example, we fail
to gain the benefits that cooperation would yield for
us. Allow me to explain.

Science informs us that we survived as a
species (instead of becoming extinct as so many,
many other species have) because we learned to
cooperate on projects that we could not handle
alone. We set a goal to erect a bridge across a river
or to build a residence and we realized that the
project was too big to do by ourselves so we
enlisted the cooperation of others and we got it
done. There are benefits to cooperation. Many of
us are not aware of these benefits; we thus often do
things that are not in our true self-interest. It is a
moral truth that today we need more cooperation on
worthwhile goals that enhance the quality of human
life.

Ethics is concerned with how to live a good life,
how to be a good person, how to live the optimal
life, how to live well as we provide a quality life
for all. When we engage in self-defeating and counter-
productive behavior we are doing things that are no
t in our self-interest. In this new approach to Ethics
self-defeating behavior may be described as
conduct that rates a low degree on the morality
scale; or a low rank on a social happiness index.

Examples of such conduct would be violence,
ruthless exploitation (such as
holding slaves, or murder, or rape, , or even
disregarding worker safety standards.) Cheating
others, baiting and switching, engaging in angry
quarreling, polluting the planet which we all
inhabit, these are also forms of unethical conduct.

Ethics is concerned with harmonious human
relationships, and how to achieve them. There are
axioms in that body of useful knowledge named
“Ethics,” and logical deductions can be made from
those basic assumptions, those axioms. In the theory
governing ethics one learns about Ethical Fallacies,
which are mistakes in thinking with regard to moral
topics and moral practice.

What are the basic assumptions? Some values
are more valuable than others. How can we tell the
better from the worse? It has been shown by a
logical demonstration, a proof, that one
individual, having individuality, seen as ‘unique,’
is worth more than all the things in this world, and that one
material thing is worth more than all the babble, the
theories and systems and ideologies; a person is
worth more than a thing, and a thing is worth more
than a number. As we know, a thing can rust out
and be discarded; and a number can be erased.
Human life, though, is valuable, uncountably
valuable. That’s why it is wrong to murder or rape.,
or to connive and exploit, to enslave and deceive.

Those who understand these relationships can
be said to “know their values.” Once you know
your Ethics you will put people first. Then far be
low you will rank materialism and ostentatious
consumption. And you will also realize that
systems, dogmas, opinions rather than facts and
evidence, isms, labels, and stereotypes have the
lowest positive value to us.

For more information, further detzails, see: http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf

It's all fine and dandy. However, consider the situation where good values will contradict other good values, or when lowest positive values supersede higher positive values.

Take, for instance, material possessions and greed. It is ranked, by the article's author, as the lowest positive value. Yet, without possession and greed, much of civilization never would have advanced. Possession and greed are the single most valuable and conducive motivating forces that built a society in which everyone is valued, has a good life, and can feel safe.

Take, for another instance, the value of human life. It is the most valuable, uncountably valuable, asset to humanity as a whole. So the more humans, the more valuable the world becomes. This is what the article tells us.

On the other hand, too many valuable human beings, as has become the case, will destroy the environment even against their own conscious will. They will deplete non-renewable resources, eliminate ecosystems, and kill off species by hunting them and/or reducing their natural habitat area to below levels for sustainability. All because we are valuable to the nth degree.

The rest of the items in the article that are presented as positive values, and also least positive values, can be shown as an agent in the opposite end of the scale of positivity as the author describes it.

Moral absolutism is impossible. Moral relativism, in which you not only dogmatically decide what is moral and what is not, but decide that on the bases of what good it is to WHOM, and why. Therefore in moral relativism the truth is easier to create and shape, than in moral absolutism (as per the article's failing to relate the values presented in true form of all real and currently occurring possibilities.)

[prof]

H

Examples ... violence,
ruthless exploitation (such as
holding slaves, or murder, or rape, or even
disregarding worker safety standards.) Cheating
others, baiting and switching, engaging in angry
quarreling, polluting the planet which we all
inhabit, these are also forms of unethical conduct.

Ethics is concerned with harmonious human
relationships, and how to achieve them.

What are the basic assumptions? Some values
are more valuable than others.

... one individual, having individuality, seen as ‘unique,’
is worth more than all the things in this world, and that one
material thing is worth more than all the babble, the
theories and systems and ideologies; a person is
worth more than a thing, and a thing is worth more
than a number. As we know, a thing can rust out
and be discarded; and a number can be erased.
Human life, though, is valuable, uncountably
valuable. That’s why it is wrong to murder or rape.,
or to connive and exploit, to enslave and deceive.

Those who understand these relationships can
be said to “know their values.” Once you know
your Ethics you will put people first. Then far be
low you will rank materialism and ostentatious
consumption. And you will also realize that
systems, dogmas, opinions rather than facts and
evidence, isms, labels, and stereotypes have the
lowest positive value to us.

For more information, further detzails, see: http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf

It's all fine and dandy. However, consider the situation where good values will contradict other good values, or when lowest positive values supersede higher positive values.

Take, for instance, material possessions and greed. It is ranked, by the article's author, as the lowest positive value.
This is false. See quote above.

Yet, without possession and greed, much of civilization never would have advanced.
This is an example of an opinion stated with offering evidence. It is unproveable. There is no way to falsify this claim. It ranks lowest among the values spoken of in the o.p.

Possession and greed are the single most valuable and conducive motivating forces that built a society in which everyone is valued, has a good life, and can feel safe.
There is nothing wrong with personal possessions. Greed, however, is a compulsive disorder, akin to saving old newspapers and magazines until they stack up to the ceiling. In the case of greed, one always 'needs' more and more money, or financial status.

Take, for another instance, the value of human life. It is the most valuable, uncountably valuable, asset to humanity as a whole.
This is true by the very definition of Ethics in the new paradigm proposed - the Hartman/Katz Theory of The Moral Sense. If a human life isn't valuable to humans, then what is??

On the other hand, too many valuable human beings, as has become the case, will destroy the environment even against their own conscious will. They will deplete non-renewable resources, eliminate ecosystems, and kill off species by hunting them and/or reducing their natural habitat area to below levels for sustainability. All because we are valuable to the nth degree.
This doesn't have to happen. Small is beautiful. Decentralize. Be an environmentalist. Make use of known technologies. Some experts argue that North America can easily support 100 million people without any environmental damage, if it is done right. See the recent book The Wizard and the Prophet.

Moral absolutism is impossible. Moral relativism, in which you not only dogmatically decide what is moral and what is not, but decide that on the bases of what good it is to WHOM, and why.
I agree with this.

You will have a richer life if in your value priorities you put people first, things next, and dogma as well as unfounded opinions last.

[-1-]

You will have a richer life if in your value priorities you put people first, things next, and dogma as well as unfounded opinions last.

What about this dogma:

You will have a richer life if in your value priorities you put people first, things next, and dogma as well as unfounded opinions last.

And what about this dogma:

Take, for another instance, the value of human life. It is the most valuable, uncountably valuable, asset to humanity as a whole.

This is true by the very definition of Ethics in the new paradigm proposed - the Hartman/Katz Theory of The Moral Sense. If a human life isn't valuable to humans, then what is??

A dogma is a dogma is a dogma. If you start to differentiate between valuable dogma and unimportant dogma, you are back to square one.

Because every dogma IS valuable in a certain light or under certain conditions. And every dogma is unimportant or downright detrimental in a certain different light and under different conditions. If you select some dogma that you consider universal, and think it ought to be accepted by everyone, then you are forcing dogma on people. And that practice has given dogma a bad name in the first place. And that forcing creates a negative aura to the very dogma it forces on others, every time it happens.

[-1-]

This doesn't have to happen. Small is beautiful. Decentralize. Be an environmentalist. Make use of known technologies. Some experts argue that North America can easily support 100 million people without any environmental damage, if it is done right. See the recent book The Wizard and the Prophet.

This has all already been done. This all has already proven not to work.

Everyone on the planet is a consciencious environmentalist. Yet we all destroy the environment, unavoidably, by consuming products that we consider essential to our existence. It is TOO MANY PEOPLE that has created the problem, and too many people have been created because of the dogma that human life is the most valuable.

You say North America can easily support 100 million people without environmental damage. But there are upwards of 300 million people in North America. What do YOU propose we do the with the excess VERY, VERY, MOST VALUABLE 200,000,000 humans? They got here because HUMANS ARE MOST VALUABLE. There is nothing we can do about overpopulation.

You can do nothing about overpopulation, because:

- you can't kill people just because they exist
- you can't force people not to have children.

Without either of these two, overpopulation is going to get worse, we're already at three times the limit we're supposed to be at when overpopulation is at its optimal maximum.

What I am saying here is that HUMAN LIFE BEING MOST VALUABLE is the very same thing that destroys humans. That destroys the environment, Earth, animals, plants and humans. There is no cure for that in the present, and the cure can be only drastic, and before it can be applied, it must be accpeted that this is a true paradox: the most valuable thing on the planet destroys the most valuable thing on the planet (along with destroying everything else).

[-1-]

Woody Allen gave a speech back in the sixties or the seventies to the graduating class of an ivy league college. I don't know they year, I don't know the name of the college.

He opened his speech with these words:

"Humanity, more than ever, now faces two choices: either complete annihilation, or else utterly dismal doom, defeat and despair." I am not quoting him exactly, because the original is not in front of me.

Maybe Allen was joking, and he did not realize how close he was brushing with the reality of the future happening still in his lifetime.

[Belinda]

I disagree with Prof that human life is the top value is a self evident truth. No socially -engendered truth is self evident, except possibly mathematical axioms and the self evidence of those is debateable too.

Moral systems and ethical codes are man-made. In view of that fact the criterion for evaluating a moral system or an ethical code is maintenance of life . The next in line criteria are reduction of pain and suffering, and enhancement of pleasure.

It is true that cooperation does tend to support life. However there are occasions when actual battles must be fought, when agreement and cooperation are impossible.

[prof]

I disagree with Prof that human life is the top value is a self evident truth. No socially -engendered truth is self evident, except possibly mathematical axioms and the self evidence of those is debateable too.

Straw-man Fallacy. Where did I ever say that the definition of "Ethics" {the science of the Moral Sense} is self-evident?

Of course, it is today NOT self-evident, altho some day it may be conventional wisdom.

Thank you for disagreeing without being disagreeable. You set a fine example, Belinda, of someone with good character and enlightened understanding. If more people had your values there would be in this world more cooperation to achieve shared worthwhile goals.

That is what I would emphasize!

My argument is that once we value individuals that highly, we are in the domain of Ethics - the new paradigm.

[prof]

... So the more humans, the more valuable the world becomes. This is what the article tells us.

False.
It doesn't tell you that.


Of course, I reject the idea that two persons are more-valuable than one person. I use the Transfinite arithmetic of Georg Cantor when doing addition with infinities.
Aleph plus aleph still equals aleph.

When we discuss human beings, we are talking about infinitely-deep and complex organisms. Hence it is appropriate to use Transfinite Mathematics to analyze the data.


Let it be understood that in my sense of values it is worse to do more harm rather than less harm. Thus it is worse to have a mass school shooting, or movie theater shooting, or to blow up an airline in flight than it is to burn one person at the stake - as horrible as the latter is. Yet not too long ago (less than 500 years ago) it was a common practice to burn heretics at the stake. Our moral sense has been educated in recent years, partly due to better communication technology having been developed. We are making progress in improving our moral health, albeit slowly.

....Something to think about.

[prof]

...Continuing with the theme in the original post:

Indifference to one another has zero value, while cruelty, sadism, personal corruption, and psychopathy have negative value; they are dis-values. Sociopaths commit disvalues. We don’t need more sociopaths. Selfishness is the opposite of behaving ethically, of living the moral life – the god life. It is worth less than zero. In this way we can tell better from worse.

Moral principles are not rules or commands; they are not absolutes. Instead, they are guidelines to living a trouble-free life, a smooth balanced harmonious life – an honest life, a life of humility and serenity, of peace of mind and peace in the world – a life of justice. The world is not fair but each of us can engage in fair-dealing: we can resolve not to cheat our fellow-man, not to cut corners, not to have fun at the expense of others, not to ‘put people down.’ It helps to know our Ethics.

Therefore I shall present some of the initial basic axioms. Picture this: If you think you are alone on an island then all you need to be concerned about are the Laws of Nature …you don’t want to hurt yourself. If however it turns out that you encounter another individual on that island the laws of human nature come into play.

Those who have enough cognitive assets (enough sense) will be respectful, show some consideration, radiate good will, seek the benefits of cooperation, encourage sharing. {To do otherwise is to risk making an enemy who will fight you over the resources available on the island.}

Due to your awareness of Ethics, in as many ways as you can you will want to make everyone concerned, all parties, a mutual winner. You will be careful to avoid selfishness. You will do random acts of kindness and express deliberate feelings of compassion and empathy. You will strive for clear, accurate, adult communication. You will neither act superior nor play the victim. Furthermore you’ll be mindful that your biases can become liabilities. One has an ethical liability when one confronts another and shows disrespect.

Here are some axioms of Ethics and some implications that follow from them. You enter the field of Ethics when you regard an individual, or a group of them, as deep, complex, as having a story to tell. When a situation arises where there is interaction with another person you, as a result of understanding Ethics, seek to add value to that situation; you give that person your attention, you show that you care. For Ethics is about caring and sharing, and offering a helping hand to those less fortunate, or to those in need.

Axiom 1 is: make things morally better. This implies “Make yourself better!” This suggests self-improvement. It is worthwhile to pursue self-development, and moral growth.

Axiom 2 is: We have a moral obligation to be good and to be happy. To be good, morally, is to have a good character. An entire division of Ethics is devoted to this subject, and more will be said about this later.

Morality, as it is defined in this new way of looking at Ethics, means: being true to yourself. This implies authenticity, integrity, and honesty. It further implies living up to what you believe and not having double standards, one for yourself and one for others. It includes having high ideals (moral principles) and having your conduct correspond with those ideals. Some of us will do this consciously at first, until we make a habit of it, and some of us do it already intuitively.

Morality is a matter of degree and a person who knows his or her ethics will want to gain a high degree of morality. It is an increasing correspondence with an improving self-image.

All parts of Ethics (the systematic body of knowledge) and all its terms, once it is more-fully developed, shall fit together in a pattern – perhaps like the numbers in the solution of a Sudoku puzzle. Once it gets on the right track logic will enable it to find the balanced pattern, the web of life and human relationships.

With this new knowledge put into practice our relations with one another will markedly improve. There will be less heated quarrels, more anger management, more harmony, and more peace of mind. Families will know how to be functional rather than dysfunctional. Members of the family will defer to one another, will show respect.

Comments? Questions?

[Belinda]

Prof, thank you very much for morally supporting me.
I'm writing about favouring the individual as the only proper repository for morality.

I try to look at the issue from socio-historical perspective and I also view any specific society's morality as integral with that society's economic base. At this juncture it's appropriate to cite Nazi Germany as one of the societies we must question. Germany's economic base was in danger and Nazism was a response to the latter; I reckon a psychological response from fear. Nazi morality is not aligned with cooperation and in fact deliberately imposes draconian limits upon who to cooperate with. Nazis impose severe limits on which man is to be accorded the status of 'individual'.

A society with a caste or feudal system also depends upon the less free man's lack of power to be an individual. Am I wrong to align individuality with freedom? The cult of Individuality received a boost from the Romantic movement . The Romantic movement was a response to industrialisation and urbanisation, both of those being economic processes. The cult of individuality is therefor historical and not inherent in moral systems.

My preamble is ended and I come to another point which is that I believe Prof's point of view is enlightened Axial Age morality. I favour this morality as do most of us here, I guess. However it's not inherent is what I want to stress and this morality is in present danger from authorities that pretend to be democratic and are in fact self seeking authorities. If we support the morality which Prof explains we have to be aware of who the danger to it is, and fight for the morality based upon the freedom of the individual; I understand and hope that's what Prof supports.

[Belinda]

-1- wrote:

It's all fine and dandy. However, consider the situation where good values will contradict other good values, or when lowest positive values supersede higher positive values.

Take, for instance, material possessions and greed. It is ranked, by the article's author, as the lowest positive value. Yet, without possession and greed, much of civilization never would have advanced. Possession and greed are the single most valuable and conducive motivating forces that built a society in which everyone is valued, has a good life, and can feel safe.

Aren't you confusing trade and mutually beneficial competition with exploitation?

[-1-]

-1- wrote:

It's all fine and dandy. However, consider the situation where good values will contradict other good values, or when lowest positive values supersede higher positive values.

Take, for instance, material possessions and greed. It is ranked, by the article's author, as the lowest positive value. Yet, without possession and greed, much of civilization never would have advanced. Possession and greed are the single most valuable and conducive motivating forces that built a society in which everyone is valued, has a good life, and can feel safe.

Aren't you confusing trade and mutually beneficial competition with exploitation?

I was talking about greed, I thought. Because others were decrying greed.

Why did you change the subject to exploitation? A bit of a Strawman never hurt any argument, I suppose is what you are thinking.

[-1-]

...Continuing with the theme in the original post:

Indifference to one another has zero value, while cruelty, sadism, personal corruption, and psychopathy have negative value; they are dis-values. Sociopaths commit disvalues. We don’t need more sociopaths. Selfishness is the opposite of behaving ethically, of living the moral life – the god life. It is worth less than zero. In this way we can tell better from worse.

Moral principles are not rules or commands; they are not absolutes. Instead, they are guidelines to living a trouble-free life, a smooth balanced harmonious life – an honest life, a life of humility and serenity, of peace of mind and peace in the world – a life of justice. The world is not fair but each of us can engage in fair-dealing: we can resolve not to cheat our fellow-man, not to cut corners, not to have fun at the expense of others, not to ‘put people down.’ It helps to know our Ethics.

Therefore I shall present some of the initial basic axioms. Picture this: If you think you are alone on an island then all you need to be concerned about are the Laws of Nature …you don’t want to hurt yourself. If however it turns out that you encounter another individual on that island the laws of human nature come into play.

Those who have enough cognitive assets (enough sense) will be respectful, show some consideration, radiate good will, seek the benefits of cooperation, encourage sharing. {To do otherwise is to risk making an enemy who will fight you over the resources available on the island.}

Due to your awareness of Ethics, in as many ways as you can you will want to make everyone concerned, all parties, a mutual winner. You will be careful to avoid selfishness. You will do random acts of kindness and express deliberate feelings of compassion and empathy. You will strive for clear, accurate, adult communication. You will neither act superior nor play the victim. Furthermore you’ll be mindful that your biases can become liabilities. One has an ethical liability when one confronts another and shows disrespect.

Here are some axioms of Ethics and some implications that follow from them. You enter the field of Ethics when you regard an individual, or a group of them, as deep, complex, as having a story to tell. When a situation arises where there is interaction with another person you, as a result of understanding Ethics, seek to add value to that situation; you give that person your attention, you show that you care. For Ethics is about caring and sharing, and offering a helping hand to those less fortunate, or to those in need.

Axiom 1 is: make things morally better. This implies “Make yourself better!” This suggests self-improvement. It is worthwhile to pursue self-development, and moral growth.

Axiom 2 is: We have a moral obligation to be good and to be happy. To be good, morally, is to have a good character. An entire division of Ethics is devoted to this subject, and more will be said about this later.

Morality, as it is defined in this new way of looking at Ethics, means: being true to yourself. This implies authenticity, integrity, and honesty. It further implies living up to what you believe and not having double standards, one for yourself and one for others. It includes having high ideals (moral principles) and having your conduct correspond with those ideals. Some of us will do this consciously at first, until we make a habit of it, and some of us do it already intuitively.

Morality is a matter of degree and a person who knows his or her ethics will want to gain a high degree of morality. It is an increasing correspondence with an improving self-image.

All parts of Ethics (the systematic body of knowledge) and all its terms, once it is more-fully developed, shall fit together in a pattern – perhaps like the numbers in the solution of a Sudoku puzzle. Once it gets on the right track logic will enable it to find the balanced pattern, the web of life and human relationships.

With this new knowledge put into practice our relations with one another will markedly improve. There will be less heated quarrels, more anger management, more harmony, and more peace of mind. Families will know how to be functional rather than dysfunctional. Members of the family will defer to one another, will show respect.

Comments? Questions?

I am sorry, Prof, but your theory is incredibly full of holes.

You demand of a person to be true to him- or herself. Yet you decry sadism.

What if the person's true inner self is sadist? Then you put him in a position of a permanently unsolvable moral dilemma.

Your theory is sappy, is coated with a saccharine-sweet veneer, and denies the relativistic nature of morality, while at the same time lists a bunch of tenets and axioms, which, as a group, are contradictory.

[-1-]

When we discuss human beings, we are talking about infinitely-deep and complex organisms. Hence it is appropriate to use Transfinite Mathematics to analyze the data.


Let it be understood that in my sense of values it is worse to do more harm rather than less harm.

Humans by their very nature are not infinitely complex and not infintely deep. Their bodies are made of (very rough estimate) 3.49e24 atoms, and while that's an enormously big number, it still does not allow infinite possibilities of combination.

But of course you redeem your entire philosophy and allow mine to be equally as acceptable, when you say "in my sense of values". Yes, you have your sense of values, and I have my sense of values, and that is that. You accept and solidify this duality of "I and thou" in a flash. I can go along with that, without of course agreeing that your values are logically solid. Your values, in my esteem, are romanticized, sentimental and gouche. And the more you try to prove them right, the more contradictory concepts you create.