The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts - Part I

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

Post Reply
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts - Part I

Post by prof » Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:55 am

Value - by definition - involves a match... to put it in plain language: a match between the ideal and the actual. When the actual fulfills the ideal, there is value. - [Note that when I used the vague-language phrase "the actual fulfills the ideal" I meant that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the two, not that one "reaches" the other.] If one wants to see the more-exact language then check out pp. 7 through 9 of the manual, ETHICS: A College Course, where "value" is defined with precision in a professional manner. - http://tinyurl.com/24cs9y7

Ethical values thus also involve a match. Morality {- by definition within the Unified Theory of Ethics -} is a match between one's ideal Self and one's actual self. Of course, it is the individual himself (or herself) that sets the ideal, that determines his/her self-identity. It is you who defines yourself. If you define yourself as 'an authentic person' then it is you who would live up to that self-image in order to fulfill your self-concept, and thus be a highly-moral individual.

In my work I make the point that Ethics begins with the perspective that every individual is of uncountably high value. {I admit that that this proposition may seem to some as counter-intuitive. So also are many physical science concepts. This fact has not deterred technological progress. Isn’t it time we observed such progress in the moral field?}

Here is the rational argument for the claim: Any single individual has more features than you or I can count, since each of his/her myriad properties has its own (long list of) properties. The amount of value, by definition and by observation, is based on the amount of properties. Thus we may conclude:

We would have an ethical world if the vast majority - as a result of education - believed strongly that: One individual is worth billions of billions in value. Let’s take that as our assumption - our hypothesis to be fulfilled - and see what would happen.

One consideration that may come up in Ethics is the notion - which shall remain undefined for now - of respect: respect for other individuals and respect for yourself.
I don't want to argue about the concept; I know it means different things to different people. And if you can't manage to respect certain individuals, you can at least show some politeness and courtesy just because you possess a good character. I will say this, though:

If you respect another person you will not want to do anything that will cause him harm; you will use words that heal rather than words that hurt. You will avoid any actions that could be considered abuse of that person. You will do all you can to provide opportunity for others to flourish. You will perform acts of kindness. You will be courteous and civil. And you will extend your ethical radius, and become more inclusive. {Of course I am aware that the psychopath is a special case, one with brain damage, and do not expect that respect will prevent a violent psychopath from committing a crime; but even this individual ought to get our compassion. And if one has none to give, one is bordering on psychopathy or sociopathy oneself.}

If you have self-respect you will strive to avoid hypocrisy, corruption, and selfishness. you will have some self-discipline, you will not easily yield to temptations, you will avoid self-abuse (such as taking drugs), you will watch your health, eat healthily, exercise, make sure you get plenty of sleep, etc. You will ask to take on some responsibility and be accountable for it. You will observe the Principle of Moral Consistency: you won't have one standard for others and another standard for yourself. You won't be a phony; and will avoid double standards. You will seek nonviolent solutions to any human relations problem.

You will seek to create value in each situation in which you find yourself. (You'll want to be a creator.) You will understand the Logical Existential Hierarchy of Value: Life and Love trumps Materialism and worldly matters; and worldly concerns and practical considerations trumps ideologies and systems. (All the systems and dogmas in the world are not worth one material thing, and all the things in the world are not worth one human life.)

Earlier I asked, What would happen if people lived by the Ethical perspective which arises when each individual is seen as of uncountably-high value. There are social-ethical implications. Let me list a few:

It would turn out that we would treasure people more, and thus, as a way of applying ethics to life, would have active campaigns to feed the hungry, defend the children, get rid of spousal abuse. Also we would teach kids in elementary schools how to live nonviolently …. how not to have violent arguments, how to cope with bullies and what to do if picked on. Wouldn't we?

Yes, we would. Because if we care, and care enough, our priorities would be straight. For example, we would urge the entire Congress in the U.S.A. to pass the Youth Promise Act. We would also likely encourage the immediate passage of that bill which in lingering in Congress to set up a Peace Department to counterbalance the War Department (now know euphemistically as "the Defense Department.")

We would sign as-air-tight-as-possible Mutual Nonaggression Pacts with every nation on earth. We would unilaterally scrap all our mass-destruction weapons (except one teeny one) to set a good example for the world, and make a big noise about our doing it ....thus reducing drastically the threat level of an unintended accident. We would study the arts of peace as actively as we now study war. Etc., etc.

What do you think about all this? Post a comment.

What I said above is not quite all there is to it -- but that's a pretty-good start.

To learn more about the new paradigm for ethics, see the PDF files (safe to open): - LIVING THE GOOD LIFE - http://tinyurl.com/28mtn56

A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS - http://tinyurl.com/crz6xea

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

and the paper, ETHICAL EXPLORATIONS - http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ONS%20.pdf
Last edited by prof on Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:33 pm, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts - Part I

Post by ForgedinHell » Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:59 pm

prof wrote:Value - by definition - involves a match... to put it in plain language: a match between the ideal and the actual. When the actual fulfills the ideal, there is value. - [Note that when I used the vague-language phrase "the actual fulfills the ideal" I meant that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the two, not that one "reaches" the other.] If one wants to see the more-exact language then check out pp. 7 through 9 of the manual, ETHICS: A College Course, where "value" is defined with precision in a professional manner. - http://tinyurl.com/24cs9y7

Ethical values thus also involve a match. Morality {- by definition within the Unified Theory of Ethics -} is a match between one's ideal Self and one's actual self. Of course, it is the individual himself (or herself) that sets the ideal, that determines his/her self-identity. It is you who defines yourself. If you define yourself as 'an authentic person' then it is you who would live up to that self-image in order to fulfill your self-concept, and thus be a highly-moral individual.

In my work I make the point that Ethics begins with the perspective that every individual is of uncountably high value. {I admit that that this proposition may seem to some as counter-intuitive. So also are many physical science concepts. This fact has not deterred technological progress. Isn’t it time we observed such progress in the moral field?}

Here is the rational argument for the claim: Any single individual has more features than you or I can count, since each of his/her myriad properties has its own (long list of) properties. The amount of value, by definition and by observation, is based on the amount of properties. Thus we may conclude:

We would have an ethical world if the vast majority - as a result of education - believed strongly that: One individual is worth billions of billions in value. Let’s take that as our assumption - our hypothesis to be fulfilled - and see what would happen.

One consideration that may come up in Ethics is the notion - which shall remain undefined for now - of respect: respect for other individuals and respect for yourself.
I don't want to argue about the concept; I know it means different things to different people. And if you can't manage to respect certain individuals, you can at least show some politeness and courtesy just because you possess a good character. I will say this, though:

If you respect another person you will not want to do anything that will cause him harm; you will use words that heal rather than words that hurt. You will avoid any actions that could be considered abuse of that person. You will do all you can to provide opportunity for others to flourish. You will perform acts of kindness. You will be courteous and civil. And you will extend your ethical radius, and become more inclusive. {Of course I am aware that the psychopath is a special case, one with brain damage, and do not expect that respect will prevent a violent psychopath from committing a crime; but even this individual ought to get our compassion. And if one has none to give, one is bordering on psychopathy or sociopathy oneself.}

If you have self-respect you will strive to avoid hypocrisy, corruption, and selfishness. you will have some self-discipline, you will not easily yield to temptations, you will avoid self-abuse (such as taking drugs), you will watch your health, eat healthily, exercise, make sure you get plenty of sleep, etc. You will ask to take on some responsibility and be accountable for it. You will observe the Principle of Moral Consistency: you won't have one standard for others and another standard for yourself. You won't be a phony; and will avoid double standards. You will seek nonviolent solutions to any human relations problem.

You will seek to create value in each situation in which you find yourself. (You'll want to be a creator.) You will understand the Logical Existential Hierarchy of Value: Life and Love trumps Materialism and worldly matters; and worldly concerns and practical considerations trumps ideologies and systems. (All the systems and dogmas in the world are not worth one material thing, and all the things in the world are not worth one human life.)

Earlier I asked, What would happen if people lived by the Ethical perspective which arises when each individual is seen as of uncountably-high value. There are social-ethical implications. Let me list a few:

It would turn out that we would treasure people more, and thus, as a way of applying ethics to life, would have active campaigns to feed the hungry, defend the children, get rid of spousal abuse. Also we would teach kids in elementary schools how to live nonviolently …. how not to have violent arguments, how to cope with bullies and what to do if picked on. Wouldn't we?

Yes, we would. Because if we care, and care enough, our priorities would be straight. For example, we would urge the entire Congress in the U.S.A. to pass the Youth Promise Act. We would also likely encourage the immediate passage of that bill which in lingering in Congress to set up a Peace Department to counterbalance the War Department (now know euphemistically as "the Defense Department.")

We would sign as-air-tight-as-possible Mutual Nonaggression Pacts with every nation on earth. We would unilaterally scrap all our mass-destruction weapons (except one teeny one) to set a good example for the world, and make a big noise about our doing it ....thus reducing drastically the threat level of an unintended accident. We would study the arts of peace as actively as we now study war. Etc., etc.

What do you think about all this? Post a comment.

What I said above is not quite all there is to it -- but that's a pretty-good start.
To learn more about the new paradigm for ethics, see the PDF files (safe to open): - LIVING THE GOOD LIFE - http://tinyurl.com/28mtn56

A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS - http://tinyurl.com/27pzhbf

ETHICAL ADVENTURES - http://tinyurl.com/27pzhbf

and the paper, ETHICAL EXPLORATIONS - http://tinyurl.com/22ohd2x
So, a man who rapes and strangles to death a girl of 12 who was mentally handicapped, and dumps her body out in a field, in a garbage bag, that man is someone whom I should respect? This is a description of a real man, who committed this real crime in Pueblo West, Colorado, about a year ago. This child is dead. Her parents grieve for her, and will forever wonder if they could have prevented this from happening. He threw her in a field where dogs could chew on her, where she would rot away, and hopefully, he could get away with his crime. She left a bite mark on his arm where she fought back for her life. Imagine her terror as she gasped for her last breath. She probably couldn't believe it was happening to her, children think they will live forever.

He is scum. Any ethical system that states he is to be respected is pure rubbish.

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts - Part I

Post by The Voice of Time » Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:27 am

to ForgedInHell, well, it's always that "change" factor. I believe in redemption for all people who sincerely change in their life or are allocated a position of life which integrates them into a societal function where they contribute to others happiness. But in the absence of any change I agree with you, no respect.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8307
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts - Part I

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:03 am

Gosh, I must be a psychopath then, because I don't have any compassion for people who rape and murder children.
This sort of poisonous 'thinking' has taken hold in Western society and it starts in kindergarten with the bullshit 'no-blame' policy towards bullies, which really means 'blame the victim'. This is philosophy in its worst possible form. It shows no respect for victims of crime, just a nauseating and artificial sympathy for the perpetrators. 'PC on steroids' needs to be consigned to the garbage can of history.

prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts - Part I

Post by prof » Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:10 am

ForgedinHell wrote:
prof wrote:...One consideration that may come up in Ethics is the notion ... of respect: respect for other individuals and respect for yourself.
I don't want to argue about the concept; ... I will say this, though:

If you respect another person you will not want to do anything that will cause him harm...[emphasis added.]

...To learn more about the new paradigm for ethics, see the PDF files (safe to open): - LIVING THE GOOD LIFE - http://tinyurl.com/28mtn56

A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS - http://tinyurl.com/27pzhbf

ETHICAL ADVENTURES - http://tinyurl.com/27pzhbf

and the paper, ETHICAL EXPLORATIONS - http://tinyurl.com/22ohd2x
So, a man who rapes and strangles to death a girl of 12 who was mentally handicapped, and dumps her body out in a field, in a garbage bag, that man is someone whom I should respect? ....
No, you don't have to respect him.

You are correct to see his deeds as Transpositions of Value. I agree with you in condemning his acts.

I would not reccommend being morally judgmental; it is bad for your health. Sure, get him out of circulation. He doesn't belong in society, mingling with people who know their Ethics.

Also, I suggest you read the links offered to find out what Ethics actually means. The concept respect is hardly mentioned at all, as I recall. I never claimed you were obliged to give it. I said "If" you do. You read into it what you wanted to, thereby misunderstanding it. Then you ranted about "garbage" etc. Perhaps it is wise to read more carefully....

To Everyone It May Concern:

Don't be so ready to criticize; read constructively. Ask yourself, "How can I add value to this?"

That's the approach which the new paradigm for ethics indicates IF you want to have a more valuable life, and IF you want to upgrade the world in which you live.

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts - Part I

Post by The Voice of Time » Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:03 am

Rhetoric you speak. But rhetoric die in the face of hard minds.

prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts - Part I

Post by prof » Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:05 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:...it starts in kindergarten with the bullshit 'no-blame' policy towards bullies, which really means 'blame the victim'. This is philosophy in its worst possible form. It shows no respect for victims of crime, just a nauseating and artificial sympathy for the perpetrators. 'PC on steroids' needs to be consigned to the garbage can of history.
The science of Ethics does not show respect any more than the science of Botany smells. Roses smell. Botany analyzes and classifies them. Ethics analyzes self-images and then compares them with the actual behavior of the self that possesses them to see if there is a good match. If there is, that is the degree of morality shown at that moment in the record of the testee who took the value inventory when his or her life coach offered the opportunity to 'Know yourself!'

I personally do respect victims, yet I am doing what I can to arrange that there are less of them in this world. There will be less crime if we catch early those who are prone to violence, detecting it when they are age 4, and redirecting them to institutions where they may get some rehabilitation. There already exist tests that can detect such, but it's very tricky to administer them since parents are worried that the results will have unpleasant feedback, so they are reluctant to give permission. {All teachers and therapists have to go by today is behavior of the child, such as when, for example, he or she grabs the toy held by another kid, and is indifferent to the crying of the latter afterward. Or, for another example, s/he is mean to an animal.}


Blaming is not a good way to go through life; it is a sign of immaturity according to the latest research in psychiatry and therapeutic counseling. Readiness to blame does not rate as Emotional Intelligence. It violates inner peace. Serenity is a good quality to have; it adds value to life.

I wish for you a quality life !

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests