The Key to Unlock the Door

[prof]

The Key to Unlock the Door – and thus make a dent in corruption, abuse, war, and revenge.

I would like you to inform me if we can gain agreement on these points.

We need a key to unlock the door, to overcome the barrier. In the present context, what is the door (the barrier)? It is that not enough people behave ethically

Someone might ask: Why should they?

If they did, we would have a better world: we wouldn’t be plagued with problems that are so oppressive. You can list them as well as I. [For example, in an ethical world, rather than have a massive “unemployment crisis” we – both business and government - would pay people while they are retraining in the skills that society needs. We would then welcome the onrush of automation and robotics – which now are replacing traditional human labor – welcome them as facilitating the introduction of a Resource-Based-Economy. (Research this on Google if you are not familiar with it.) We would teach people not to go into debt, and how to avoid getting into debt.]

There is room for self-improvement – even among those who believe that they do behave ethically, and who understand what this might mean.

THE KEY: We need a massive self-improvement awareness campaign aimed at drilling in a comprehensive insight into the principles of Ethics and how to live them. Maybe a special “month,” set aside to publicize that awareness, would help launch the campaign; and some spectacular entertainment event(s) to dramatize it.

What is the Critical Path leading to the campaign to teach the basic principles of Ethics? What preparations have to be made? In what order – with what deadlines? Will it require funding? Will a Foundation sponsor it? How does that get arranged?

A friend named John said this, with regard to action that needs to be taken in the U.S.A., and it is worth quoting here:

“Real social progress is achieved by making structural changes in a gradual manner, and … ‘Three steps forward, two backwards’ applies to efforts to improvement. Given the present circumstances, the changes required in many different areas are substantial and almost overwhelming because we have ignored too much for too long a time ("kicking the can"), and because they are significant in scope, we seem to fail to make even a small step in any area.

But we can begin. First, we should assure that no child (or family) goes hungry even for a day. Second, we can eliminate large political contributions by individuals, corporations, and PACs. Third, Congress can reform its own bylaws to prevent one or two people from blocking bills or nominations. Fourth, we can mandate in slow, incremental steps the amount of energy provided by renewable sources of power and improvements in the electrical grid (50 percent of the electricity generated is lost in transmission). Fifth, we can attempt to curb school violence and bullying. The list of small steps can, of course be extended to all sorts of areas; but the important thing is that these steps can be accomplished at many different levels by many different groups all working towards the same goals.”


You may observe: There is far more anger and resentment among people than anyone likes to admit. What information can banish these harmful emotions?

Here I would quote an ancient philosopher, Seneca, who wrote:

A physician is not angry at the intemperance of a mad patient, nor does he take it ill to be insulted by a man in a fever. Just so should a wise man treat all mankind as a physician treats a patient, and look upon it only as sick and irresponsible.

You may inquire: How does the law of Cause-and-Effect operate in our relations with others?
Coleridge had an answer when he explained: “We receive but what we give.”

And that same law will explain why the individual who does good to herself will spontaneously do good to others; and whosoever harms himself also hurts others. It follows from this that self-development must be our first development.

We can’t depend upon anyone, even a friend, who doesn’t depend on himself. Only a person who acts beneficially toward himself will do so toward others. Ethical insight takes priority before worthwhile political change, before we devise better systems, better institutions. For why would anyone design a superior more-effective system if he/she didn’t have ethical awareness to begin with?

Are we in accord on those points? Let me know what you think about all this, okay?
All constructive comments are most welcome.

[Bernard]

I think what is critical is that we are willing to forfeit bad thinking, which may force us into ceasing certain activities that we are very attached to indeed. If a good example of good thinking is:

“We receive but what we give.”

then what is the value of the highly competitive nature of something like the Olympics, because if every athlete acted by Coleridge's statement, then no-one would allow themselves to come first in any event, as they would consider that slowing down and giving the other competeitor(s) first place would be the truest way of receiving first place.

[Thundril]

I think what is critical is that we are willing to forfeit bad thinking, which may force us into ceasing certain activities that we are very attached to indeed. If a good example of good thinking is:

“We receive but what we give.”

then what is the value of the highly competitive nature of something like the Olympics, because if every athlete acted by Coleridge's statement, then no-one would allow themselves to come first in any event, as they would consider that slowing down and giving the other competeitor(s) first place would be the truest way of receiving first place.

If I give my best performance, keeping within the rules we have agreed, thus challenging (and perhaps even goading) you to give your best performance, then, although the medal will go to only one of us on any particular day, we have both gained precisely what we have given to each other. Do you not see a tournament as an example of true cooperation? How could it happen otherwise?
The concept is not as crude as your question seems to suggest.

[prof]

I think what is critical is that we are willing to forfeit bad thinking, which may force us into ceasing certain activities that we are very attached to indeed. If a good example of good thinking is:

“We receive but what we give.”

then what is the value of the highly competitive nature of something like the Olympics....

Good question, Bernard !

You may have missed pages 15-18 in this reference I gave in another post:
http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ics%20.pdf
The passage is too extensive to quote here. It is responsive to your inquiry. It is the chapter ON COMPETITION in that fourth part of the UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS which I proposed, and which uses Dr. R. S. Hartman's value science as a meta-language. "Science" is used in the etymological sense, from the Latin 'scientia', meaning "a body of thought." So check out those two or three pages within the chapter on athletic competition, and then we'll discuss it. Okay?

Happy reading. Enjoy !!

[Bernard]

I look forward to perusing it.Cheers!

[Bernard]

If I give my best performance, keeping within the rules we have agreed, thus challenging (and perhaps even goading) you to give your best performance, then, although the medal will go to only one of us on any particular day, we have both gained precisely what we have given to each other. Do you not see a tournament as an example of true cooperation? How could it happen otherwise?
The concept is not as crude as your question seems to suggest.

In Australia at the moment there are many tears over the lack of gold returned home from London. The cricket is bad for us, the All Blacke keep whopping us, Tennis is off the radar. It is truly a whingers dream come true, and I am sorry to report they are out in force. It is truly embarrassing and I am just glad that gold medals weren't given out for those who take loss the best as we would have faired poorly in that as well. Maybe Gold should be given in that category though to encourage better attitude.

[prof]

I look forward to perusing it.Cheers!

G'day, Bernard. You have a good attitude, and should go far in life.

Life is more about giving than getting. Unfortunately, these days most don't learn that until they are about 80. If even then.

I became an expert - though far from a Master - in Draughts (here it is called Checkers.). Then, I gave up the game in favor of Sudoku, which is more of a solitaire game. What motivated me to make the change was playing Checkers on the internet with so many sore losers. They would not acknowledge an obvious Draw, and insisted on playing - in the hope their opponent would make a stupid error - long past when the game should have been over.

We need more cooperative, win-win, or gain-gain, games to play and to have our children play. Future humanity will design such games. And future video games are included in this. If the species survives, such games will be devised when Ethics knowledge is widely spread.

Cheers!

[Bernard]

I had to give up solitaire - too many disagreements erupted! I have come to realise it was all my fault in the end, but it left an irreconcilably bitter taste in my mouth for the game.

[The Voice of Time]

Your key tastes of mass-indoctrination.

The problem about ethics is that it's argueable. Therefore small instead of big leaps are taken when it comes to education. In Norway university teaches extensive ethics for fields, especially health care, but there are also the standard 1-year preparation where you study the field of philosophy in general with a main focus on ethics in order to understand the consensus of how to operate in your field, be it sociology, socionomics (social worker), psychology, leadership, business and any other field which can be thought of needing ethics.

[prof]

... In Norway university teaches extensive ethics for fields, especially health care, but there are also the standard 1-year preparation where you study the field of philosophy in general with a main focus on ethics in order to understand the consensus of how to operate in your field, be it sociology, socionomics (social worker), psychology, leadership, business and any other field which can be thought of needing ethics.

In my view, North America could learn so much from Norway!

Would that we had enough brains to copy the models that work.

I especially like the way Norway handles its prisoners, including murderers. Its success rate at rehabilitation is q quantum leap above ours here in the United States.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01mTKDaKa6Q

[The Voice of Time]

Michael Moore, yeah, seen the video

[prof]

I offered the link to the video for all Forum members to peruse. This topic -- Ethical Theory -- is to me about constructing an improved theory for ethics. It is not just about one individual.



Bernard

You have an excellent sense of humor

That is admirable! Thanks for giving us a good laugh (when you told about your experience with Solitaire.)

[LukeS]

I think that an education is more useful if it gives us knowledge. Is ethical knowledge possible? I think yes, we know that we value and we know what is in our interests to value (welfare, flourishing).

[ForgedinHell]

I think that an education is more useful if it gives us knowledge. Is ethical knowledge possible? I think yes, we know that we value and we know what is in our interests to value (welfare, flourishing).

Just curious, but what would be something you would teach a young student to teach her this "ethical knowledge"?

[prof]

Just curious, but what would be something you would teach a young student to teach her this "ethical knowledge"?

Did you study LIVING THE GOOD LIFE
http://tinyurl.com/28mtn56
Did you examine the four-part gook A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS - http://tinyurl.com/27pzhbf

At the end of Katz - ASPECTS OF ETHICS you will find a list of Ethical Principles. Those are what I would teach to the young student you mention. I would explain each principle in language suitable to the student's level of understanding. That paper is the last sequel to the Unified Theory; it is the fourth part of the book.

I would also teach them about The Inclusivity Principle and the Consistency Principle that you find in the Unifed Theory of Ethics.

Have you read my other posts here?