How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

[Eodnhoj7]

As most of you know, Ethics pertains to kindness and consideration, to making things better, to helpfulness, assuming responsibility, and to cooperation.

Here is part one of an essay I scribbled off recently, offered here for your interest and enjoyment:

-----------KINDNESS IS NOT ENOUGH!---------------

The Wheeling, Illinois Public School District has a program called “Show Kindness.” Here is a quotation with information about it:

“As part of their multicultural literature class, a group of Wheeling High School students raised over $1,500 to donate to Journeys, a local homeless organization.
Since 2012, Christine Pacyk, a Wheeling High School teacher, has run the Compassion Project, which allows high school seniors in her multicultural literature class to research and identify a cause they can support. This year, students chose Journeys.”

“Monday marked World Kindness Day, and fourth-grade students at Field Elementary School in Wheeling, Illinois did their part by paying a surprise visit to London Middle School to put up cheerful signs and Post-it notes.

Wearing "Be Kind" T-shirts, the Field fourth-graders crossed Dundee Road to visit nearby London, where they will attend grades 6-8. A few London students were in on the surprise and helped the younger Field students as they moved around the building to attach colorful signs and notes to lockers and on walls.”
“At the fourth graders' suggestion, each class in the school made kindness cards to give to their buddy classroom. Students didn't know, however, that other classes were also creating kindness cards for a school-wide exchange. The cards were paired with small gifts, like boxes of crayons, keychains, water bottles, or small toys, donated by local organizations.”

"Our students are so kind and thoughtful, and it was incredible to watch them through this process," said Kate Lapetino, fourth grade teacher at Field Elementary School. "Their excitement was palpable as they were creating cards for their buddies. Seeing the surprise and appreciation on their faces when they realized they had received kindness cards in return was so rewarding."

“The surprise coincided with World Kindness Day on November 13. Throughout the year, Field students have focused on ways to show kindness through random acts like greeting someone in the hallway, holding open a door, or offering to help. Students track acts of kindness - performed by themselves and others, within and outside of the school - by following #fieldkindness on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Generous donations from Indian Trails Library, Wheeling Police Department, Lakeshore Learning, Traffic Tech, and Nanooze Magazines made the kindness surprise possible.”

While it is commendable that the Wheeling Iilinois School District is encouraging and endorsing kindness, let us keep in mind that what people really want is a Quality Life (a QL); what this consists of will shortly be clarified. In order to have a Quality Life kindness is part of it but it is not enough. {The academics would say: “kindness is necessary but not sufficient.”}

[...continued in next post, q.v.]

Agreed.

[prof]

Greetings, Eodnhoj7

Thank you.

It is nice when individuals can arrive at an agreement!

You are a fine role model in that respect.

[FlashDangerpants]

When a time factor is introduced, empirical science has already shown us that measurement is present: for time can be assigned a number. For example, "3 milliseconds," "five minutes," "three years."

Misdirection. When measuring "attentions per second" is the matter under concern, just saying "wow, it's easy, just look at a stopwatch" doesn't fix the problem. The meaningless of the other component is the problem.

So, about this I-value problem you are desperately avoiding. The I-Value of the object is determined by the amount of attention it gets from the observer, correct? If that value were determined without first filtering for normative preference - in the way that would happen with properly handled scientific results - jealously would result in a relatively high I-value. Compulsive, soul destroying jealously like that of a committed stalker with murder in his heart would result in an even higher score.

None of this science of yours has anything to do with what is right or wrong, nor what decisions are ethical. It is nothing but an opinion survey buried under pseudoscientific marketing speak for the bamboozlement of mediocrities.

[planetlonely23]

It is interesting reflect what the philosopher Max Scheler tried to show not only the polarity of the values but also to find tangible and intangible values, I mean what it refers to the construction or relativism of the moral value as an idea coming from our thought which acomplish to be an objet to fulfill our greedy interest. Behind the scene of tangible values you can inverse it to achieve a spiritual way when for example a house is giving you the security and reinforcement of the family concept. So the relativism of the values could be separated by degrees and interact them in certain ways, but in particular it is important to differ from the perception of our culture and knowledge what values connect and diverge from others.

[prof]

In order to assist readers better to understand the topic of this thread - which is the Hierarchy of Values, the HOV - the following may help:

The formula that depicts this HOV is this:

I > E > S. { Alternatively, it may be written this way: S< E < I.}

" > " here means "is more valuable than" or "is better than" or "takes priority over."

Here are some examples to illustrate the HOV:

people values > materialism > random ideas

empathy > functions > opinions

inspiration > know-how > dogma

compassion > diplomacy > creeds

love > savoir-faire > idle talk

morality > efficiency > nonscientific theories

reality > (mere) existence > essences

heart > hands > headstrong

peace-of-mind, balance, serenity > turmoil and struggle > armchair quarterbacking

Intrinsic Values (I-values) are: empathy, compassion, kindness, love, peace, balance, being real, being inspired, enthusiastic, growing in morality.
Their measure is (what mathematicians refer to as) the power of the continuum: Aleph-one.

Note that when one I-values, one forms a continuum with what, or who, is being valued.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOT ME; US.
This means: It's not about me. It's about we, working together. United we stand; divided we fall

Study up on what Dr. K. A. Appiah means by "Cosmopolitanism."

[Logik]

In order to assist readers better to understand the topic of this thread - which is the Hierarchy of Values, the HOV - the following may help:

The formula that depicts this HOV is this:

I > E > S. { Alternatively, it may be written this way: S< E < I.}

" > " here means "is more valuable than" or "is better than" or "takes priority over."

Here are some examples to illustrate the HOV:

people values > materialism > random ideas

empathy > functions > opinions

inspiration > know-how > dogma

compassion > diplomacy > creeds

love > savoir-faire > idle talk

morality > efficiency > nonscientific theories

reality > (mere) existence > essences

heart > hands > headstrong

peace-of-mind, balance, serenity > turmoil and struggle > armchair quarterbacking

Intrinsic Values (I-values) are: empathy, compassion, kindness, love, peace, balance, being real, being inspired, enthusiastic, growing in morality.
Their measure is (what mathematicians refer to as) the power of the continuum: Aleph-one.

Note that when one I-values, one forms a continuum with what, or who, is being valued.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOT ME; US.
This means: It's not about me. It's about we, working together. United we stand; divided we fall

Study up on what Dr. K. A. Appiah means by "Cosmopolitanism."

The one question you can't answer in your framework is how to handle temporal discounting. Is high or low time-preference better?

Ultimately this distinction leads to the stoic vs epicurean mindset.

Those who are willing to endure pain for long-term reward, and those who want instant gratification.

Which one is "better" ?

[FlashDangerpants]

The formula that depicts this HOV is this:

I > E > S. { Alternatively, it may be written this way: S< E < I.}

" > " here means "is more valuable than" or "is better than" or "takes priority over."

Well that's a bit weird, because the language you use to base that claim only works if it just means bigger than. After all the entire point of an I-Value is that it represents a greater amount of attention being given to a subject by an observer.

Intrinsic Values (I-values) are: empathy, compassion, kindness, love, peace, balance, being real, being inspired, enthusiastic, growing in morality.

I-Values, being derived as you have written from quantitative measurement of the amount of attention units given by an observer to the observed, also include jealousy and hate. Indeed, passionate hate would probably be one of the most potent sources of I-Value imaginable. So Hate > Functions > Opinions.

[prof]

The formula that depicts this HOV is this:

I > E > S. { Alternatively, it may be written this way: S< E < I.}

" > " here means "is more valuable than" or "is better than" or "takes priority over."

Well that's a bit weird, because the language you use to base that claim only works if it just means bigger than. After all the entire point of an I-Value is that it represents a greater amount of attention being given to a subject by an observer.

Intrinsic Values (I-values) are: empathy, compassion, kindness, love, peace, balance, being real, being inspired, enthusiastic, growing in morality.

I-Values, being derived as you have written from quantitative measurement of the amount of attention units given by an observer to the observed, also include jealousy and hate. Indeed, passionate hate would probably be one of the most potent sources of I-Value imaginable. So Hate > Functions > Opinions.

Hi, DP

What you write shows a misunderstanding of the Algebra of Value, and the Calculus of Value. This is clearly explained in R. S. Hartman, THE STRUCTURE OF VALUE. [Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press (1967)].

Some outside reading is necessary. Sorry.

Thank you for trying to clear up the confusion.

"Hate" may be understood as: "frustrated love." Frustration, most would agree, has a negative aspect to it; therefore a minus sign must enter into the logic symbol that depicts this situation. When such a sign appears in an exponent, it greatly reduces the over-all value in the outcome.

The same applies to passionate jealousy.

[Logik]

"Hate" may be understood as: "frustrated love." Frustration, most would agree, has a negative aspect to it; therefore a minus sign must enter into the logic symbol that depicts this situation. When such a sign appears in an exponent, it greatly reduces the over-all value in the outcome.

The same applies to passionate jealousy.

Where does loving, passionate and self-gratifying murder come on the scale?


It always boils down to the "Who decides?" question.

[prof]

"Hate" may be understood as: "frustrated love." Frustration, most would agree, has a negative aspect to it; therefore a minus sign must enter into the logic symbol that depicts this situation.... The same applies to passionate jealousy.

Where does loving, passionate and self-gratifying murder come on the scale?

It always boils down to the "Who decides?" question.

Be careful not to commit what Hartman spoke of as "The Moral Fallacy." We note that when one confuses an ethical usage with a non-ethical usage. There is no contradiction, nor paradox, in the following spoken sentence:

A good murderer is a bad person.

The first employment of a value term, namely "good," is the axiological sense of the term: it refers to one who murders well; and has all the properties that the speaker believes a 'murderer, should have. The second value word, namely "bad" is an ethical or moral usage: it says that one who murders fails to have a character worthy of a person growing in morality, fails to be a complete human being, i.e., an ethical person.

Here is another example:

A bad conscience is a good conscience.

Again, no paradox. It informs us that if your conscience is bothering you, then your conscience is not asleep; it is functioning as a conscience should. You have thus a sensitive conscience, one that is working well. The first value term is used in the Ethical sense. The second value term is used in the Axiological sense.

I trust this clarifies the matter, and helps to dispel some of the confusion.
For further details see M. C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course.
http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... Course.pdf

.

[Logik]

"Hate" may be understood as: "frustrated love." Frustration, most would agree, has a negative aspect to it; therefore a minus sign must enter into the logic symbol that depicts this situation.... The same applies to passionate jealousy.

Where does loving, passionate and self-gratifying murder come on the scale?

It always boils down to the "Who decides?" question.

Be careful not to commit what Hartman spoke of as "The Moral Fallacy." We note that when one confuses an ethical usage with a non-ethical usage. There is no contradiction, nor paradox, in the following spoken sentence:

A good murderer is a bad person.

The first employment of a value term, namely "good," is the axiological sense of the term: it refers to one who murders well; and has all the properties that the speaker believes a 'murderer, should have. The second value word, namely "bad" is an ethical or moral usage: it says that one who murders fails to have a character worthy of a person growing in morality, fails to be a complete human being, i.e., an ethical person.

Here is another example:

A bad conscience is a good conscience.

Again, no paradox. It informs us that if your conscience is bothering you, then your conscience is not asleep; it is functioning as a conscience should. You have thus a sensitive conscience, one that is working well. The first value term is used in the Ethical sense. The second value term is used in the Axiological sense.

I trust this clarifies the matter, and helps to dispel some of the confusion.
For further details see M. C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course.
http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... Course.pdf

.

You haven't clarified anything - you have done the exact opposite. You have muddied the water with new distinctions.

I asked "Is murder morally better than non-murder?". This is a yes/no question.

Instead of answering the one yes/no question, you simply added another one: Is a person who murders good or bad?

More yes/no questions require more information.
The more information you require - the more uncertain you are as to the correct answer.

[Eodnhoj7]

Where does loving, passionate and self-gratifying murder come on the scale?

It always boils down to the "Who decides?" question.

Be careful not to commit what Hartman spoke of as "The Moral Fallacy." We note that when one confuses an ethical usage with a non-ethical usage. There is no contradiction, nor paradox, in the following spoken sentence:

A good murderer is a bad person.

The first employment of a value term, namely "good," is the axiological sense of the term: it refers to one who murders well; and has all the properties that the speaker believes a 'murderer, should have. The second value word, namely "bad" is an ethical or moral usage: it says that one who murders fails to have a character worthy of a person growing in morality, fails to be a complete human being, i.e., an ethical person.

Here is another example:

A bad conscience is a good conscience.

Again, no paradox. It informs us that if your conscience is bothering you, then your conscience is not asleep; it is functioning as a conscience should. You have thus a sensitive conscience, one that is working well. The first value term is used in the Ethical sense. The second value term is used in the Axiological sense.

I trust this clarifies the matter, and helps to dispel some of the confusion.
For further details see M. C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course.
http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... Course.pdf

.

You haven't clarified anything - you have done the exact opposite. You have muddied the water with new distinctions.

I asked "Is murder morally better than non-murder?". This is a yes/no question.

Instead of answering the one yes/no question, you simply added another one: Is a person who murders good or bad?

More yes/no questions require more information.
The more information you require - the more uncertain you are as to the correct answer.

False, all you do is ask yes and no questions and apply the same binary logic you accuses other's of. If you are to negate other's opinions you have to provide a standard and the standard for "morality"...what the language of Python? Then call everyone a sophist?


Honestly the longer you stay here...I think you lie alot.

You probably made up most of the successes you claimed to have had or got them through disreputable means.

[Logik]

False, all you do is ask yes and no questions and apply the same binary logic you accuses other's of.

All pertinent moral questions can be reduced down to yes/no answers. Your relativism is getting in your way of seeing that.

If you are to negate other's opinions you have to provide a standard and the standard for "morality"...

No I don't. Is murder immoral? It is a yes/no question.

And in the absence of Oracle machines ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine ) the question is only answerable by those who ask it!

Humans. I don't need to justify the answer. Murder is immoral. Why? Because humans at large have agreed that it is so!

Sophistry is precisely to demand a longer answer to a question that doesn't have one!

Honestly the longer you stay here...I think you lie alot.

The irony of accusing me of lying, when you can't even stick to a perspective for longer than 3 seconds.
If you don't know what truth is - you can't know what falsity is either. And if I do believe - you are still looking for "truth"...

You probably made up most of the successes you claimed to have had or got them through disreputable means.

I am so glad for the legal system in western societies - innocent until proven guilty. You seem to want to live in a world where the court of public opinion rules supreme.

[prof]

Logik asks:

Where does loving, passionate and self-gratifying murder come on the scale?

Loving comes in at the top of the scale
It is symbolized in the Calculus as: I to the I power. This symbol has the cardinality: Aleph-one to the aleph-one.

Self-gratifying - or other kinds of - murder come in at the bottom of the scale.

I to the minus E has the cardinality one-over-(aleph-one to the power aleph-null) ...a quantity very close to zero value.

[Logik]

Loving comes in at the top of the scale

murder come in at the bottom of the scale.

Yes. I am aware that when you separate "love" and "murder" they come at the top and bottom of the scale respectively.

What I am asking is where "loving murder" comes on the scale.