How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

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

Belinda
Posts: 2806
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Belinda » Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:36 am

Prof wrote:
For 55 years I have been thinking about how to construct better ethical theories than those with which we are familiar. By themselves, the conventional standard theories do not seem to me to have done the job. Yes, they make you think, but do they result in more ethical people? A good Ethical theory should change lives, in my humble opinion.
Learning Spinoza's theory of ethics changed my religious life, especially the social situation in which I was introduced to Spinoza. In this I was like a child at school; it's the social situation in the classroom that enfolds the child's learning .Similarly with adult learners the social situation matters, for instance the mental and physical health of students and other workers matters not only for their happiness as individuals but also for their usefulness to others.

Margaret Thatcher the Conservative prime minister claimed that there was no such thing as society with the corollary that greed is good that's to say unbridled capitalism is good. But it's not, is it? The socialist ethic which contains capitalism within international welfare laws is better, and the socialist ethic does change lives by helping to abolish poverty. Ethical people adhere to good old ethical traditions that are usually promoted by the moderate arms of the great religions and are ethics that are lived by children's significant others so that
the growing child learns them by example.

Any religion needs to be moderated to ensure that the ethics are maintained. In order for the religions(or ideologies) to be moderated the members of the religion (or ideology) need to be able to behave as democrats rather than as devotees of a pope or holy book.

The other way to sound ethics that can change lives for the better is the arts. Philosophy is an art form.Any art form depends for its merit not on its content alone but on the skill of the maker of the art. True, some philosophers are not accessible to any but the most literate and persevering. I therefore ask,"Which of the great philosophers, including such as Prof if you like, is not only good at ethics but also entertaining to read?"

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1773
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:48 pm

prof wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 2:23 am
How can we, working cooperatively, construct a sound Ethical Theory?

For 55 years I have been thinking about how to construct better ethical theories than those with which we are familiar. By themselves, the conventional standard theories do not seem to me to have done the job. Yes, they make you think, but do they result in more ethical people? A good Ethical theory should change lives, in my humble opinion.
From my perspective, I have to say you have never been cooperative. I asked you question, you became a giant sulking man-baby, even though I have never seen anyone except me do you the courtesy of reading your publications. But we can put that aside. You have spent 55 years on this, so doing the job badly is very much your problem not mine.

The whole of your output is as we both know, predicated on the I > E > S formula which you believe is valid and sound, but I believe is total arse wash.

So you should start a new thread, explain and defend that valid and sound formula without forcing people to go and read a selection of wikipedia pages and your other books. You use this as a cheap way out of problematic conversations and have become much too reliant on that tactic.

I'll sit it out. You get that thing past Belinda, Logik, Serruptitious et al without prevarication, I will consider it defended.

If you can't, everything you have predicated on it needs complete do-over.

prof
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by prof » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:52 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:57 am

If you are going to tell people "we would 'strive' ", then that is NOT some thing most people WANT to do. People have to WANT to do some thing before they will do it.

Telling people to strive to minimize chaos, misery, destitution and avoid suffering is to tell people to strive/try their hardest to reject their emotions. That just is NOT going to ever work. Living in a perfectly peaceful harmonious world with EVERY one, as One, still involves living with ALL emotions. Emotions are a necessary part of being 'human'.
Yes, "strive" was a poor choice of words. Perhaps "advocate" might have been better.

When you write, "Emotions are a necessary part of being 'human'." that is where Intrinsic valuation comes in. Just as music is Intrinsicly-valued sound; and poetry is Intrinsic valuation of words; so are pet names and emotions the realm of Intrinsic Value. Also emphasis and empathy fall into that area of I-valuing.
Robert S. Hartman, the poly-math genius, taught me that. Now that I am nearly 90 I still appreciate how that brain did Philosophy. He knew his Logic. He believed that Georg Cantor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor had something to offer to Mathematics. To Hartman's mind, Transfinite Numbers seemed appropriate for discussing and ordering emotions.

As you discovered on p. 16 of the Structure book, where a rough definition of "value" was given, it said:
Something has value if it has the requirements (the properties or attributes) to fulfill its purpose or intention. The more attributes one employs to describe the thing, the more value one tends to find in it. As one proceeds to describe it one is giving it attention and getting involved with it. {Robert S. Hartman defined the term in a rigorous way which assumes acquaintance with Formal Logic.}
As you learned on pp.17-19 there are three basic Dimensions of Value, S, E, and I for short.

as to how they are precisely defined I will discuss that with Logik in a future post. ...unless someone requests the information right here and now.

I note that that you have much higher standards for what it tis to live ethically than most professional philosophers and casuists that I have met. And your conception of greed is more stringent than any I have heretofore seen.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:38 am

Age wrote:
After you human beings evolve past that recognition and old thinking and move onto recognizing that the human species is
just a part of the whole one family of Everything then progress really can start to take shape
I agree with this in principle even though I do not think it can ever be achieved while human beings think the way that they do
Why cannot we all be at one with each other and make the world a better place ? The simple answer is not every one wants to

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:54 am

Age wrote:
No computer is needed in order to KNOW what it is that we ALL agree with . That information is built within . This information can be
very easily ascertained and when it becomes consciously KNOWN then it is just knowledge that can be passed on from one to another
Obviously if it knowledge that is agreed with and accepted by ALL then it will just simply make sense to ALL as it stands and thus will
spread like wild fire to ALL peoples
Can you give some examples of this built in knowledge we all agree with so I know exactly what you mean
I think I know what you mean but it would be better if you explained it yourself so as avoid any confusion

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:01 am

Age wrote:
However if any computer or any person is seen as an authority then what you are proposing here on this page will just collapse
This is possibly the most profound thing that I have ever read in my whole life
That I actually find it so is a clear indication of how much I still have to learn

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:06 am

Age wrote:
If one by being a martyr shows how a better world for Everyone as One can be created then is that not ethical
Of course it is ethical for martyrs always sacrifice their life for a cause greater than them and willingly so too

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:15 am

Age wrote:
Telling people to strive to minimize chaos misery destitution and avoid suffering is to tell people to strive / try their hardest to
reject their emotions . That just is NOT going to ever work . Living in a perfectly peaceful harmonious world with EVERY one as
One still involves living with ALL emotions Emotions are a necessary part of being human
More profound truth from you here and even moreso as this is something that has never occurred to me before

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Logik » Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:17 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:15 am
Age wrote:
Telling people to strive to minimize chaos misery destitution and avoid suffering is to tell people to strive / try their hardest to
reject their emotions . That just is NOT going to ever work . Living in a perfectly peaceful harmonious world with EVERY one as
One still involves living with ALL emotions Emotions are a necessary part of being human
More profound truth from you here and even moreso as this is something that has never occurred to me before
Summed up as "Know thyself".

Emotions aren't chaotic once understood. They are information. And my "lizzard brain" is way smarter than my "rational brain" most of the time.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:35 am

Emotion as information is an interesting concept as well as also being true even if it is not always thought of in those terms

The reptilian part of your brain may be more primitive than the mammalian part but it is also the part which keeps you alive
A pre frontal cortex is good to have but it is not obligatory where as you will not live very long once your hypothalamus goes

Belinda
Posts: 2806
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Belinda » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:38 am

Emotions are bodily functions like the flow of digestive enzymes is bodily function. Someone with no emotions is either dead or dying.

Unlike digestive juices emotions can be controlled. We control our emotions with our reason that's to say with the reasoning part of our human brains. When we have done so the result is refined emotions or 'feelings'.

We are much influenced by the culture of belief in which we were born, reared, or have subsequently adopted. The way we use our reasoning faculty depends upon the implicit beliefs of our culture of beliefs and also upon how we have been trained to use our reasoning ability.

"How construct a sound Ethical Theory?" depends, not upon unrefined emotions, but upon reasoning . An individual's reasoning will itself will be partly destroyed if there is a significant injury to the forebrain .This is the part of the brain-mind which processes sympathy. Without sympathy the reasoning is deficient. This is a fact known to clinicians who look after patients who have had such an injury. I understand that the old therapy called lobectomy had a similar effect of depriving the patient of sympathy which caused reasoning to be deficient.

Damasio's main field is neurobiology, especially the neural systems which underlie emotion, decision-making, memory, language and consciousness. Damasio might believe that emotions play a critical role in high-level cognition—an idea counter to dominant 20th-century views in psychology, neuroscience and philosophy.[citation needed]


Damasio in 2008.
Damasio formulated the somatic marker hypothesis,[4] a theory about how emotions and their biological underpinnings are involved in decision-making (both positively and negatively, and often non-consciously). Emotions provide the scaffolding for the construction of social cognition and are required for the self processes which undergird consciousness.[citation needed] "Damasio provides a contemporary scientific validation of the linkage between feelings and the body by highlighting the connection between mind and nerve cells ... this personalized embodiment of mind."[5]



Age
Posts: 3238
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Age » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:29 pm

prof wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:52 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:57 am

If you are going to tell people "we would 'strive' ", then that is NOT some thing most people WANT to do. People have to WANT to do some thing before they will do it.

Telling people to strive to minimize chaos, misery, destitution and avoid suffering is to tell people to strive/try their hardest to reject their emotions. That just is NOT going to ever work. Living in a perfectly peaceful harmonious world with EVERY one, as One, still involves living with ALL emotions. Emotions are a necessary part of being 'human'.
Yes, "strive" was a poor choice of words. Perhaps "advocate" might have been better.

When you write, "Emotions are a necessary part of being 'human'." that is where Intrinsic valuation comes in. Just as music is Intrinsicly-valued sound; and poetry is Intrinsic valuation of words; so are pet names and emotions the realm of Intrinsic Value. Also emphasis and empathy fall into that area of I-valuing.
Robert S. Hartman, the poly-math genius, taught me that. Now that I am nearly 90 I still appreciate how that brain did Philosophy. He knew his Logic. He believed that Georg Cantor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor had something to offer to Mathematics. To Hartman's mind, Transfinite Numbers seemed appropriate for discussing and ordering emotions.

As you discovered on p. 16 of the Structure book, where a rough definition of "value" was given, it said:
I am not sure how, nor why, you would even jump to the conclusion that I have discovered some thing on p.16. Especially considering by the way I wrote, did it not imply that I am only up to p.13? (Maybe it would have been better if I made that clear?)
prof wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:52 pm
Something has value if it has the requirements (the properties or attributes) to fulfill its purpose or intention.
This implies one would have to KNOW it's and/or other's purpose. But how many people can honestly say that they KNOW what their own purpose in Life is, let alone what other things purpose are?
prof wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:52 pm
The more attributes one employs to describe the thing, the more value one tends to find in it. As one proceeds to describe it one is giving it attention and getting involved with it. {Robert S. Hartman defined the term in a rigorous way which assumes acquaintance with Formal Logic.}

As you learned on pp.17-19 there are three basic Dimensions of Value, S, E, and I for short.
Again you are ASSUMING some thing that is completely WRONG. I have NOT learned any thing at all like this, for the very simple fact that I am NOT even up to having read these pages yet.

Describing a 'thing', for what it is, I find very important. I also find just as important, if not more so, when, and if, people come to an agreement and acceptance of what a 'thing' actually IS. This can be explained in far more detail. Also, when ALL people are in agreement, and in acceptance, of thing/s, then just how important this agreeing and accepting of "things" really IS, will be SEEN and KNOWN.
prof wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:52 pm
as to how they are precisely defined I will discuss that with Logik in a future post. ...unless someone requests the information right here and now.
I am not sure whether I want to read ALL of what you have written in "The Structure" first, then request the information or request the information right here and now.

Either way maybe I will leave that up to you to decide, for me.
prof wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:52 pm
I note that that you have much higher standards for what it tis to live ethically than most professional philosophers and casuists that I have met.
Which could help explain WHY the "world" is in the shape that it is in now, when this is written. Adult human beings have a tendency to only look at and see that what they, themselves, individually do is okay, good, or all right behavior, and that it is only "others" who actually do wrong in Life.

I say greed is the third root of all evil and that dishonesty is the root of all evil. That is, if one does not admit their own wrong doing, then there is really nothing for them to change. Therefore, things will just stay the same, and the "world" will just stay in the same shape that it is now also. ALL of us adults have to admit we HAVE a "problem", before we can fix it. The only actual real 'problem' in Life, is US ADULTS. The actual Truth is we do not "have" a problem, we ARE 'the problem'.

I could keep going much deeper and exposing more, with self-referring explanations showing more and more, but that will do for now.
prof wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:52 pm
And your conception of greed is more stringent than any I have heretofore seen.
I also never truly thought that I was greedy. To me, it was always "others" who were greedy, and NOT me. I was always "justifying" that to myself. That was until the day that I was truly honest with myself. If the money that I use to buy some thing, which I only want, but do NOT really need in order to keep living, which could have actually kept a child alive who is only dying, or did just die, because they do/did NOT have enough food to eat, then I AM GREEDY. If I am allowing children to die, just because I want some thing, then I AM GREEDY.

I can TRY, and have TRIED TO, all of my life, "justify" my actions and behaviors as NOT being greedy. But the real and actual Truth IS; if I want to be a Truly loving, caring, guiding, and responsible adult, then I have to accept that I AM GREEDY. I may NOT like that FACT, and actually hate that Truth and FACT, but if I want to be HONEST with my Self, then I have to look at thee Truth, and TELL it to my self, and to "others".

We are NOT going to become Truly Ethical if we are keep being dishonest to and with ourselves.

Age
Posts: 3238
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Age » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:48 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:38 am
Age wrote:
After you human beings evolve past that recognition and old thinking and move onto recognizing that the human species is
just a part of the whole one family of Everything then progress really can start to take shape
I agree with this in principle even though I do not think it can ever be achieved while human beings think the way that they do
If you wrote and added; "now, when this is written", at the end of what you wrote here, then I would agree wholeheartedly.

In other words, WHEN (and I will use the 'when' word and NOT the 'if' word) WHEN human beings get over and past the way that they LOOK AT and SEE things 'now, when this is written, then SEEING/UNDERSTANDING the Oneness of Life, and living, then what is the goal we are ALL wanting CAN and WILL come about. The seemingly contradictory Nature of Life, however, purposely formed the illusion of separation in order so that human beings could work out, and then UNDERSTAND what ALL-OF-THIS, is ALL ABOUT.

The Oneness can only be Truly understood from the seemingly separate.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:38 am
Why cannot we all be at one with each other and make the world a better place ? The simple answer is not every one wants to
NOT every human adult wants to. BUT EVERY human child once wanted to.

Sadly, and again because of the seemingly contradictory nature of Life, the human brain is so Truly AMAZING at being able to grasp onto any thing, learning, understanding, and reasoning that the brain can reason out absolutely any thing at all, including things that are incredibly naturally abhorrent to us, and/or totally against our own inherent nature.

Why would an adult human being NOT want to be at one with "others" and make the world a better place, for their own OFFSPRING?

We literally do SPRING OFF of each other. If adult human beings were being nice and kind to each other always, then their children would, and would NATURALLY want to, follow in their FOOT STEPS.

But the very reason WHY children grow up NOT wanting to be at one with each other and make the world a better place is because, for some, that UNNATURAL way of living is ALL they have seen and experienced. Again, because of the human brain's amazing ability to learn absolutely any, and EVERY, thing it can and HAS learned, and reason to NOT want to be at one with "others".

Age
Posts: 3238
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Age » Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:06 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:01 am
Age wrote:
However if any computer or any person is seen as an authority then what you are proposing here on this page will just collapse
This is possibly the most profound thing that I have ever read in my whole life
That I actually find it so is a clear indication of how much I still have to learn
How much I 'waffle' on, in this forum, and how far I still am from being fully heard and understood is a clear indication of just how much I still have to learn also. We ALL, as a species, have so much MORE to learn. The beauty of LEARNING is it IS FOREVER.

Although learning how to communicate much better, for me, can feel like the most frustrating thing in Life, I still want to always remain OPEN so that I can just keep learning how to communicate better. (What I would not do to be able to just say and express that what I want to share, like all of you in this forum can do? I would forgo my life if I could just be fully heard and fully understood just once.)

Age
Posts: 3238
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Age » Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:38 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:17 am
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:15 am
Age wrote:
Telling people to strive to minimize chaos misery destitution and avoid suffering is to tell people to strive / try their hardest to
reject their emotions . That just is NOT going to ever work . Living in a perfectly peaceful harmonious world with EVERY one as
One still involves living with ALL emotions Emotions are a necessary part of being human
More profound truth from you here and even moreso as this is something that has never occurred to me before
Summed up as "Know thyself".
From my perspective, emotions/internal feelings are half of who 'we', people are. The other half being thoughts.

Now, to explain this is much more detail, which will explain and show far more, from my perspective, is possible. But that is only if any one is truly interested.
Logik wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:17 am
Emotions aren't chaotic once understood.
To me, very true.
Logik wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:17 am
They are information.
This is also very true, to me.

Although I never knew that emotions were seen or felt as 'chaotic' I can now see how they could be seen as that.

See I was so stupid that it was not till much later on in life that I even became aware of what an internal feeling was. One day I started having these feelings and realized that these must be these 'emotion' things that human beings talk about. I literally was that stupid. I then realized that I had been having them all my life but i had just became an absolute expert at blocking them. I was really that stupid/ignorant that I was totally unaware of what was actually happening within my own body.

After this I realized that emotions are just some thing I feel, and that if I just "sit back" I can sit here and observe them without them affecting "me", or the way that "i" behave. It is only IF I allow emotions to control "me", or this body, then that is when "me/this body" over reacts. I also realized that emotions are NOT who I am but are separate from Me. (Which this may sound and seem contradictory from what I said above, but really it is not.)

There is NO situation in where I can not NOT be in control, and that these feelings, which there are said to be roughly about 450 or so of them, are only sign posts, signals, or signs of what is happening around this body. Like you said; They are information. And, as long as 'I' am in control and I am noticing what emotions/internal feelings are arising when they do, which when actually one is to 'sit back' and become truly aware of them, emotions are changing as often as thoughts can and do, which is just about constantly. Anyway if I am to observe, become aware of, and take notice of the emotions as they come and go, I can SEE them for what they Truly are, that is; as has been pointed out just 'information' or a sign/signal of what is actually going on around one. It is just necessary 'information' for how one would be better off behaving in that situation.

Of course no one wants to feel certain emotions, but there are NO actual negative or positive emotions. ALL emotions are just signals or information to help guide us to obtain what is truly wanted and desired.
Logik wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:17 am
And my "lizzard brain" is way smarter than my "rational brain" most of the time.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests