Can we possibly agree on any of these points?

[prof]

1) The only way to be wisely selfish is to care about others. It is ethical to give others some consideration.

2) One ethical goal worth our while may be to build a global civilization where the most number of people will flourish.

3) There are moral truths.

Reasoning with regard to point (3) is this: Imagine a wold where every creature suffers all the time -- a world with the worst-possible misery for everyone. Most people would agree that "This is bad."

If you agree, then you have admitted to a moral truth. And there exists at least one.

[Recall that in another thread I gave an objective truth that is moral because it concerns an individual and his possible self-identity. I wrote that (nearly all) individual humans have a capacity to generate value. This is an objective fact.]

Every other experience is better than the worst-possible misery for everyone. Thus a spectrum, a continuum, is formed. We can imagine - and design - better and better cultures. City-planners do this all the time. They design living arrangements (for human beings) that are more "human." And architects design buildings that are more functional with a goal of making it more comfortable for human beings.

I am not claiming here that there is one best way to live. There may be several, or many, that provide optimum happiness.

In talking about morality we are today talking philosophy.

There is, however, no rigid frontier between philosophy and science. In fact, philosophy is "the womb of science." The moment some concepts become operationalized, the moment we can conceive of one or more experiments to confirm a proposition, we are working with a science. As we spell out the conditions for it, or make it possible to set up such an experiment, we are functioning as scientists. As you know,, what today we call Physical Science was earlier known as Natural Philosophy.

Science is impossible without the Value of Logical Consistency; or the Value of Evidence. Science believes in Sharing, Honesty, and many other values - which are indispensable to the scientific enterprise. Science is permeated with values. Values and facts are not such separate worlds as some "thinkers" try to assert. We often hear of the dichotomy, the separation of departments,, between the Humanities and the Sciences. The humanities, they insist, deal with values; the sciences deal with facts. Their claims that these worlds don't overlap is false.

One way to look at values is this: Values are a kind of fact. They are facts about the well-being of conscious creatures.

Most all of the above ideas I learned from Sam Harris; and I suspect they are not original with him either. [For as it has been said here before, 'there are no new ideas.' This becomes increasingly evident as you read Plato, Marcus Aurelius, Franklin, or Emerson.]

Another way of looking at values is - and this is from R. S. Hartman - that they (values) are a play with properties: they are what results from playing around with facts. The claim here is that creativity produces values. How? You take the fact of something ...say, for purposes of illustration, the fact of a live tree. What are its factual properties? Well, we could list: wooden, branched, growing, rooted, cylindrical, heavy outside coating (bark), out-reach, capable of sprouting (leaves), varicolored, degrees of sturdiness, etc., etc. [I listed 10 but I could have listed more ...such as brownish, one-of-a-kind (having uniqueness).]

The creative person would look at a tree and begin to combine those properties in creative ways and ask what could be the results. There are many combinatorial possibilities in regarding something with 10 properties, namely, 2-to-the-tenth-power-minus-one possible arrangements; ordered pairs; ordered triples, etc. ....many diverse subsets of the set of properties.
E. g., What is growing and branched? What is cylindrical and reaches out? What is sturdy yet varicolored?

Each of the new combinations may have some value - be a value. The above exercise shows the intimate dependency of values on facts. And it can be proven within Formal Value Theory that those who know their facts make the best value judgments. That is a theorem.

It behooves us to be ready to present some evidence for any statement we make; else we are not tracking reality. All evaluative statements, as well as moral judgments and views, should be capable of being backed up with facts.

...Comments, critiques, questions, analyses, opinions?

[chaz wyman]

1) The only way to be wisely selfish is to care about others. It is ethical to give others some consideration.

You have not defined what you mean by 'wisely selfish'; nor what anyone would want to achieve this position; nor what 'care' means. Even a hermit 'cares' that others will leave him alone.

2) One ethical goal worth our while may be to build a global civilization where the most number of people will flourish.

There are already far too many people 'flourishing' for the ecology to bear. A world government will not be able to represent the needs of the multitude of cultures.

3) There are moral truths.


But all moral truth seems to be relative to different cultures.

Reasoning with regard to point (3) is this: Imagine a wold where every creature suffers all the time -- a world with the worst-possible misery for everyone. Most people would agree that "This is bad."
Specious argument
If you agree, then you have admitted to a moral truth. And there exists at least one.
As this hypothetical is not the case, then you have no argument. If this is the case then you are in fact saying that all live is bad, as all life involves suffering.
[Recall that in another thread I gave an objective truth that is moral because it concerns an individual and his possible self-identity. I wrote that (nearly all) individual humans have a capacity to generate value. This is an objective fact.]
This is not an objective fact in the way you want it to be.


I am not claiming here that there is one best way to live. There may be several, or many, that provide optimum happiness.

In talking about morality we are today talking philosophy.

There is, however, no rigid frontier between philosophy and science. In fact, philosophy is "the womb of science." The moment some concepts become operationalized, the moment we can conceive of one or more experiments to confirm a proposition, we are working with a science. As we spell out the conditions for it, or make it possible to set up such an experiment, we are functioning as scientists. As you know,, what today we call Physical Science was earlier known as Natural Philosophy.

Science is impossible without the Value of Logical Consistency; or the Value of Evidence. Science believes in Sharing, Honesty, and many other values - which are indispensable to the scientific enterprise. Science is permeated with values. Values and facts are not such separate worlds as some "thinkers" try to assert. We often hear of the dichotomy, the separation of departments,, between the Humanities and the Sciences. The humanities, they insist, deal with values; the sciences deal with facts. Their claims that these worlds don't overlap is false.

One way to look at values is this: Values are a kind of fact. They are facts about the well-being of conscious creatures.

Most all of the above ideas I learned from Sam Harris; and I suspect they are not original with him either. [For as it has been said here before, 'there are no new ideas.' This becomes increasingly evident as you read Plato, Marcus Aurelius, Franklin, or Emerson.]

Another way of looking at values is - and this is from R. S. Hartman - that they (values) are a play with properties: they are what results from playing around with facts. The claim here is that creativity produces values. How? You take the fact of something ...say, for purposes of illustration, the fact of a live tree. What are its factual properties? Well, we could list: wooden, branched, growing, rooted, cylindrical, heavy outside coating (bark), out-reach, capable of sprouting (leaves), varicolored, degrees of sturdiness, etc., etc. [I listed 10 but I could have listed more ...such as brownish, one-of-a-kind (having uniqueness).]

The creative person would look at a tree and begin to combine those properties in creative ways and ask what could be the results. There are many combinatorial possibilities in regarding something with 10 properties, namely, 2-to-the-tenth-power-minus-one possible arrangements; ordered pairs; ordered triples, etc. ....many diverse subsets of the set of properties. E. g., What is growing and branched? What is cylindrical and reaches out? What is sturdy yet varicolored?

Each of the new combinations may have some value - be a value. The above exercise shows the intimate dependency of values on facts. And it can be proven within Formal Value Theory that those who know their facts make the best value judgments. That is a theorem.

It behooves us to be ready to present some evidence for any statement we make; else we are not tracking reality. All evaluative statements, as well as moral judgments and views, should be capable of being backed up with facts.

...Comments, critiques, questions, analyses, opinions?

See in RED

[prof]

1) The only way to be wisely selfish is to care about others. It is ethical to give others some consideration.

You have not defined what you mean by 'wisely selfish'

No, I haven't - you're right. However I did define the concept "selfish" in an entire chapter in
Katz - ETHICS: A College Course, which you may study by clicking on http://tinyurl.com/24cs9y7 - see pp. 47-53.
"Wisely selfish" was Dr. Harris' phrase which I adopted in case it meant something to somebody.

I believe being selfish is the very antithesis of being ethical.

As to what it means to be morally caring, I venture with all due respect to posit that you may have an intuitive notion in this regard, but 2 percent of the population does not.
As you are aware, they are the (brain-damaged) with a handicap that stifles to some degree their capacity to feel empathy. I was not particularly addressing this thread to the psychopaths but rather to the lovers-of-wisdom and seekers of truth among the members at this Forum.


"Some people see things as they are, and ask: 'Why'?
I see things as they might be, and ask: 'Why not?'"
----------------G. B. Shaw


But all moral truth seems to be relative to different cultures.

It may seem that way. As you can tell from my earlier posts and my essays to which links were offered, in my view there are relatively-universal moral principles to which most folks would concur if they were educated in the reasonableness of these principles, or if they directly intuitively recognized the soundness of them .

Are you at all familiar with the statement of Mission and Values offered by The Institute for Global Ethics, which you can easily google? It has, in its research, found that there are (at least four) universally shared ethical values

Reasoning with regard to point (3) is this: Imagine a wold where every creature suffers all the time -- a world with the worst-possible misery for everyone. Most people would agree that "This is bad."
Specious argument

Okay, perhaps it is. Again, it is Dr. Harris who propounds it. Here is another request for you to imagine something - and there really was such a culture {the ancient Dobu culture in Malaysia}:

Imagine a culture in which no one trusts anyone else. Any culture in which even one person trusts and is trustworthy is superior and serves as the baseline for a spectrum of better cultures with respect to quality of life. This has moral implications. The latter is true.

Can you agree? If you do, then this could be the start of something big: you leave the ranks of those fanatics who suffer from extreme cultural relativism, and who thus may hold that "anything goes" if it is a more in some culture, anywhere in the world, no matter how cruel and stupid the more is. ...such as forcing woman to wear full-length burkas with faces masked and only eye-slits allowed in 100-degree heat. Or any other practice that abuses women in the name of protecting them. In several cultures in the Middle East they keep girls from going to school; they prevent men from watching TV. lest they see a Western influence.

If you agree, then you have admitted to a moral truth. And there exists at least one.
As this hypothetical is not the case, then you have no argument. If this is the case then you are in fact saying that all live is bad, as all life involves suffering.

[Recall that in another thread I gave an objective truth that is moral because it concerns an individual and his possible self-identity. I wrote that (nearly all) individual humans have a capacity to generate value. This is an objective fact.]
This is not an objective fact in the way you want it to be.

I define "objective" as meaning: a consensus proposition ...one which the majority of experts educated in the specific field relevant to the topic (more or less) concur. I am not alluding to "non-mind-dependent events." Be careful about the common error of equivocation when employing words in a philosophical discussion. Many common words are equivocal in meaning; and most English discourse uses words that are vague and ambiguous. It is the role of Philosophy to sharpen up those words ..getting them ready for science to handle them, once they are precise enough.


I am not claiming here that there is one best way to live. There may be several, or many, that provide optimum happiness.

In talking about morality we are today talking philosophy.

There is, however, no rigid frontier between philosophy and science. In fact, philosophy is "the womb of science." The moment some concepts become operationalized, the moment we can conceive of one or more experiments to confirm a proposition, we are working with a science. As we spell out the conditions for it, or make it possible to set up such an experiment, we are functioning as scientists. As you know,, what today we call Physical Science was earlier known as Natural Philosophy.

Science is impossible without the Value of Logical Consistency; or the Value of Evidence. Science believes in Sharing, Honesty, and many other values - which are indispensable to the scientific enterprise. Science is permeated with values. Values and facts are not such separate worlds as some "thinkers" try to assert. We often hear of the dichotomy, the separation of departments,, between the Humanities and the Sciences. The humanities, they insist, deal with values; the sciences deal with facts. Their claims that these worlds don't overlap is false.

One way to look at values is this: Values are a kind of fact. They are facts about the well-being of conscious creatures.

Most all of the above ideas I learned from Sam Harris; and I suspect they are not original with him either. [For as it has been said here before, 'there are no new ideas.' This becomes increasingly evident as you read Plato, Marcus Aurelius, Franklin, or Emerson.]

...The creative person would look at a tree (or anything else) and begin to combine those properties in creative ways ...

...evaluative statements, as well as moral judgments and views, should be capable of being backed up with facts.

[chaz wyman]

1) The only way to be wisely selfish is to care about others. It is ethical to give others some consideration.

You have not defined what you mean by 'wisely selfish'

No, I haven't - you're right. However I did define the concept "selfish" in an entire chapter in
Katz - ETHICS: A College Course, which you may study by clicking on http://tinyurl.com/24cs9y7 - see pp. 47-53.
"Wisely selfish" was Dr. Harris' phrase which I adopted in case it meant something to somebody.

I believe being selfish is the very antithesis of being ethical.

All ethical systems are predicated on self interest in the interest of the herd. So you are on a non-starter here.

As to what it means to be morally caring, I venture with all due respect to posit that you may have an intuitive notion in this regard, but 2 percent of the population does not.
As you are aware, they are the (brain-damaged) with a handicap that stifles to some degree their capacity to feel empathy. I was not particularly addressing this thread to the psychopaths but rather to the lovers-of-wisdom and seekers of truth among the members at this Forum.


"Some people see things as they are, and ask: 'Why'?
I see things as they might be, and ask: 'Why not?'"
----------------G. B. Shaw


But all moral truth seems to be relative to different cultures.

It may seem that way. As you can tell from my earlier posts and my essays to which links were offered, in my view there are relatively-universal moral principles to which most folks would concur if they were educated in the reasonableness of these principles, or if they directly intuitively recognized the soundness of them .

It seems that way simply because it is. Name one moral absolute!

Are you at all familiar with the statement of Mission and Values offered by The Institute for Global Ethics, which you can easily google? It has, in its research, found that there are (at least four) universally shared ethical values

I'm also conversant with the Declaration of Universal Human Rights. But these rights are devised, not by nature, but by culture - WESTERN culture, they are NOT universal , neither are they RIGHTS in any sense that the vast majority of humans even enjoy them. They are an aspiration. Sadly the claim that they are Universal impedes progress in bringing these rights to the majority of humanity. The very claim you make inhibits their implementation.

Reasoning with regard to point (3) is this: Imagine a wold where every creature suffers all the time -- a world with the worst-possible misery for everyone. Most people would agree that "This is bad."
Specious argument

Okay, perhaps it is. Again, it is Dr. Harris who propounds it. Here is another request for you to imagine something - and there really was such a culture {the ancient Dobu culture in Malaysia}:

I think you need to stop relying on your interpretation of Harris, and think these things through more clearly yourself.
Rights and moral standards are things that have to be strived for.
Natural rights are a myth of the early enlightenment; a time that believed there was a god that had designed us to a purpose. But you only have to look at the range of human characteristic giving rise to "moral" behaviours, common agreed upon to find their converse and their antithesis, also commonly agreed upon.

Imagine a culture in which no one trusts anyone else. Any culture in which even one person trusts and is trustworthy is superior and serves as the baseline for a spectrum of better cultures with respect to quality of life. This has moral implications. The latter is true.

We see cultures like this all the time. Individuals within those cultures do not trust, and those cultures do not trust other cultures. I fail to see how this point can help your argument.

Can you agree? If you do, then this could be the start of something big: you leave the ranks of those fanatics who suffer from extreme cultural relativism, and who thus may hold that "anything goes" if it is a more in some culture, anywhere in the world, no matter how cruel and stupid the more is. ...such as forcing woman to wear full-length burkas with faces masked and only eye-slits allowed in 100-degree heat. Or any other practice that abuses women in the name of protecting them. In several cultures in the Middle East they keep girls from going to school; they prevent men from watching TV. lest they see a Western influence.

If you agree, then you have admitted to a moral truth. And there exists at least one.
As this hypothetical is not the case, then you have no argument. If this is the case then you are in fact saying that all live is bad, as all life involves suffering.

[Recall that in another thread I gave an objective truth that is moral because it concerns an individual and his possible self-identity. I wrote that (nearly all) individual humans have a capacity to generate value. This is an objective fact.]
This is not an objective fact in the way you want it to be.

I define "objective" as meaning: a consensus proposition ...one which the majority of experts educated in the specific field relevant to the topic (more or less) concur. I am not alluding to "non-mind-dependent events." Be careful about the common error of equivocation when employing words in a philosophical discussion. Many common words are equivocal in meaning; and most English discourse uses words that are vague and ambiguous. It is the role of Philosophy to sharpen up those words ..getting them ready for science to handle them, once they are precise enough.

Yes, objective in 'consensus', not absolute, not universal - thus only relative to the particularities of culture and learning.

I am not claiming here that there is one best way to live. There may be several, or many, that provide optimum happiness.

In talking about morality we are today talking philosophy.

There is, however, no rigid frontier between philosophy and science. In fact, philosophy is "the womb of science." The moment some concepts become operationalized, the moment we can conceive of one or more experiments to confirm a proposition, we are working with a science. As we spell out the conditions for it, or make it possible to set up such an experiment, we are functioning as scientists. As you know,, what today we call Physical Science was earlier known as Natural Philosophy.

Science is impossible without the Value of Logical Consistency; or the Value of Evidence. Science believes in Sharing, Honesty, and many other values - which are indispensable to the scientific enterprise. Science is permeated with values. Values and facts are not such separate worlds as some "thinkers" try to assert. We often hear of the dichotomy, the separation of departments,, between the Humanities and the Sciences. The humanities, they insist, deal with values; the sciences deal with facts. Their claims that these worlds don't overlap is false.

One way to look at values is this: Values are a kind of fact. They are facts about the well-being of conscious creatures.

Most all of the above ideas I learned from Sam Harris; and I suspect they are not original with him either. [For as it has been said here before, 'there are no new ideas.' This becomes increasingly evident as you read Plato, Marcus Aurelius, Franklin, or Emerson.]

...The creative person would look at a tree (or anything else) and begin to combine those properties in creative ways ...

...evaluative statements, as well as moral judgments and views, should be capable of being backed up with facts

We've heard this all before, I'm afraid. We heard it from ancient Rome and Greece - those that believed like Aristotle that 'war was naturally just", and must be waged against those that will not submit to be governed. Or Crassus who said "quot servi tot hostes", believing that people were either born to serve or born to lead. We also had it from the British Empire who tried to impose its 'universal' moral ~Christian values on the rest of the world.
And now we have it from the Neo-Conservatives who are busily engaged in trying to impose moral values on and impose their style of democracy on the rest of the world, like the Athenians did.
They all believed that the moral right could be imposed universally.


.

[prof]

Hi there, Chaz Wyman

You miss the point of what I'm working on. You speak of 'absolutes' and 'imposing the moral right' as war-makers and empires have attempted to do.

This shows that you have not read my essays for which links have been offered, and are thus speaking blindly as to my program. Until you do your homework you ought not to sound off.

There is no effort to impose in the enterprise in which I am engaged.

The thread merely asked if one could agree with some propositions. It did not argue. With regard to the fact/value distinction it educated.

Once you have surveyed the background readings, we can have an intelligent discussion. They are too extensive to reproduce in a post at a Forum, yet they are relatively brief compared with a book. Most of the writing is in the form of a fictional dialogue; some people like that style. The College Course, though, is an expository text, as is the Living The Good Life booklet.

Have you read the book Abundance by Peter Diamandis. It relates news of social technologies, such as the X-Prize. Such technologies have promise for changing the world in a positive direction.

[chaz wyman]

Hi there, Chaz Wyman

You miss the point of what I'm working on. You speak of 'absolutes' and 'imposing the moral right' as war-makers and empires have attempted to do.

This shows that you have not read my essays for which links have been offered, and are thus speaking blindly as to my program. Until you do your homework you ought not to sound off.

There is no effort to impose in the enterprise in which I am engaged.

The thread merely asked if one could agree with some propositions. It did not argue. With regard to the fact/value distinction it educated.

Once you have surveyed the background readings, we can have an intelligent discussion. They are too extensive to reproduce in a post at a Forum, yet they are relatively brief compared with a book. Most of the writing is in the form of a fictional dialogue; some people like that style. The College Course, though, is an expository text, as is the Living The Good Life booklet.

Have you read the book Abundance by Peter Diamandis. It relates news of social technologies, such as the X-Prize. Such technologies have promise for changing the world in a positive direction.

Everytime I hear a person like you around the corner comes the moral rectitude and the imposition of the moral code.
It would not matter a rat's arse if I were to personally agree with every ethical right and wrong. We could share identical ideas about the care of the sick, the young, family, strangers, foreigners, other cultures etc, ad infinitem.
Nothing would change the fact that other people with as much justification will think another way. This would be based on their personal experiences and cultural influences. And that is what makes the world an interesting place and more prepared for a range of unforeseeable circumstances from which such diversity will the human race continue.
Narrowing the field to a strict set of moral codes upon which we all might agree has always led to unhappiness and oppression.

Ethics is an art - there are a range of reasons why is will never be a science. You cannot systematise a child's tears into a number; you cannot quantify grief; love is beyond value. No two people could ever agree about the quantity of suffering.

There is a reason why this so-called "college course" is not affiliated to a University.
It is idiotic - the work of a sociopath.

[prof]

...There is a reason why this so-called "college course" is not affiliated to a University.
It is idiotic - the work of a sociopath.

Why don't you tell us what you really think, Chaz?

It appears that maybe you haven't yet learned to use "words that heal" instead of name-calling - as is recommended in another thread here that spells out some of the implications of the Ethical perspective. Or maybe there still lingers a faulty comprehension of what Ethics is, and thus you haven't yet adopted that perspective on individuals.

And also tell us how you arrived at the conclusion that this course [in an updated Version 6.0] is not being taught at a legitimate university? You happen to be mistaken, but maybe you don't need evidence for your claims.

The Unified theory of Ethics teaches: "Find your own authenticity! Be autonomous! As anyone can see, from End Note 4, it stresses and recommends individuality. Furthermore, variety-within-unity is an Intrinsic value, and is thus praised as the way to go: We axiological ethicists highly appreciate the variations in culture.

Ethics does not impose on you! You are the agent of your change.

No careful reader would have gotten a different impression.

Note that on pages 39-39 of ETHICS: A College Course, it says this:

"Ethics, as a discipline, will resemble Music Theory in many ways, but especially in this respect: The notation, staffs, notes, physics of vibration, acoustics-theory, etc., are universal; but each composer writes his own tunes, makes his own music. He or she is grateful for Music Theory and Appreciation but eventually acts as an individual and produces something unique.

It is the same with Ethics: each individual lives his own unique life, but the theory shows him how to build on his strengths and eliminate his weaknesses. If he wants to take advantage of this information, he can."


p.s. With reference to this writer, you use the phrase " when a person like you....". There is no "person like" me, if it is I of whom you speak; I am unique. I cannot however speak of my humility, for modesty forbids it.

[prof]

Chaz writes: "Nothing would change the fact that other people with as much justification will think another way."

Really? ....With as much justification???? I hardly think so.

Yes, Ethics is an art. But what is "art"?

It is applied science.

Every work of art employs materials and techniques that are subject to scientific analysis and explanation. Can you name one that doesn't. Even poetry is applied Aesthetics ...a study which, admittedly, is even less-developed than Ethics is.

Recall that Physics is (at least) 400 years old. Just imagine how refined and extensive Ethics (as science) will be once it has been modified and upgraded for 400 years. It strains the imagination! Now it is only 47 years old.

I am NOT, as you write: "narrowing the field to a strict set of moral codes." This is a misconception of the scientific enterprise. Science is more flexible than that.

New discoveries continue to alter our understanding of the structure of the universe. New and creative technologies come along which apply known science. New design of earlier technology is constantly going on. Ethics, as science, would be no different. New social technologies are emerging, and new ones will continue to come along.

The system of Ethics only analyzes and computes. The applications are invented; it is an art. The principles I have stated (in imperative form) are primitive compared to the more exact and more brilliant principles that will later be derived, as the theory advances. There is no reason why scientific methods cannot be applied in the field of Ethics.

Meaning serves as the measure of value. Transfinite numbers convey profound meaning. The HVP test results (briefly described in Appendix One) provides valid statistical, probabilistic data in the objective language of decimal fractions for purposes of comparison and analysis. Better tests will be devised, given centuries to have it happen, and better theory will be constructed to cover the data. This is a safe prediction to make.

At least a start has been made.

[chaz wyman]

Chaz writes: "Nothing would change the fact that other people with as much justification will think another way."

Really? ....With as much justification???? I hardly think so.

Yes, Ethics is an art. But what is "art"?

It is applied science.

Every work of art employs materials that are subject to scientific analysis and explanation. Can you name one that doesn't. Even poetry is applied Aesthetics ...a study which, admittedly, is even less-developed than Ethics is.

Recall that Physics is (at least) 400 years old. Just imagine how refined and extensive Ethics (as science) will be once it has been modified and upgraded for 400 years. It strains the imagination! Now it is only 47 years old.

I am NOT, as you write: "narrowing the field to a strict set of moral codes." This is a misconception of the scientific enterprise. Science is more flexible than that.

New discoveries continue to alter our understanding of the structure of the universe. New and creative technologies come along which apply known science. New design of earlier technology is constantly going on. Ethics, as science, would be no different. New social technologies are emerging, and new ones will continue to come along.

The system of Ethics only analyzes and computes. The applications are invented; it is an art. The principles I have stated (in imperative form) are primitive compared to the more exact and more brilliant principles that will later be derived, as the theory advances. There is no reason why scientific methods cannot be applied in the field of Ethics.

Meaning serves as the measure of value. Transfinite numbers convey profound meaning. The HVP test results (briefly described in Appendix One) provides valid statistical, probabilistic data in the objective language of decimal fractions for purposes of comparison and analysis. Better tests will be devised, given centuries to have it happen, and better theory will be constructed to cover the data. This is a safe prediction to make.

At least a start has been made.

As you can see - you have so many responses to your idiotic attempt to mathematise morality, and you think you've 'made a start"?.
I think we are done here.

[prof]

. As you can see - you have so many responses to your idiotic attempt to mathematise morality, and you think you've 'made a start"?.
I think we are done here.

What's wrong with making responses at a Forum?

You may be done, but I am just getting started

[chaz wyman]

. As you can see - you have so many responses to your idiotic attempt to mathematise morality, and you think you've 'made a start"?.
I think we are done here.

What's wrong with making responses at a Forum?

You may be done, but I am just getting started

What responses?
It seems to be just you are me.

[prof]

I once said to a buddy of mine, "I have an idea !" and he retorted, "That's dangerous !!"

He was being witty.

There are some though who are dead serious when they ridicule (and fear) new ideas. Spinoza faced it. They did not erect a monument to this idea man until 300 years after he was dead. Critics are to great men as pigeons are to the monument erected to honor the deep thinker. No comparisons implied with yours truly.

Alan Donagan wrote an important book, The Theory of Morality. It received high praise from James Franklin, who is a professor jointly in the Department of Mathematics, and the Department of Moral Philosophy at the University of New South Wales. This resource, as well as the work of Dr. Franklin, is worth the attention of Members of this Ethical Theory Forum. Many of Dr. Franklin's papers report on the intersection of mathematics and ethics.
https://research.unsw.edu.au/node/78543

There are historical precedents: Spinoza, Locke, and J. S. Mill, among others, believed that ethics could be, and would be, more systematized and logical.


The fact is I seek no credit and do not mind who borrows any idea from this scribbler and runs with it. My stuff is all open source and is freely given.


All constructive contributions are most welcome.

[chaz wyman]

I once said to a buddy of mine, "I have an idea !" and he retorted, "That's dangerous !!"

He was being witty.

There are some though who are dead serious when they ridicule (and fear) new ideas. Spinoza faced it. They did not erect a monument to this idea man until 300 years after he was dead. Critics are to great men as pigeons are to the monument erected to honor the deep thinker. No comparisons implied with yours truly.

Alan Donagan wrote an important book, The Theory of Morality. It received high praise from James Franklin, who is a professor jointly in the Department of Mathematics, and the Department of Moral Philosophy at the University of New South Wales. This resource, as well as the work of Dr. Franklin, is worth the attention of Members of this Ethical Theory Forum. Many of Dr. Franklin's papers report on the intersection of mathematics and ethics.
https://research.unsw.edu.au/node/78543

There are historical precedents: Spinoza, Locke, and J. S. Mill, among others, believed that ethics could be, and would be, more systematized and logical.


The fact is I seek no credit and do not mind who borrows any idea from this scribbler and runs with it. My stuff is all open source and is freely given.


All constructive contributions are most welcome.

That would imply that what you have so far is worthy of further construction - it is not.
Spinoza said all there is to say about Ethics via the 'geometric method'. I suggest you read him.
There after my constructive criticism is to reject your pseudo-logical gibberish and think about what ethics is all about.

[prof]

...my constructive criticism is to reject your pseudo-logical gibberish and think about what ethics is all about.

Is that your idea of a constructive contribution??

I take it we can't agree on these three points offered at the outset in this thread.

Is it possible that what you call "gibberish" is your perception?

The established science of Moral Psychology deals with grief. awe, disgust, patriotism and other feelings. It starts from ethical concepts but looks at them from a psychological point of view.

When you see an uncountable number of properties in another person you are expressing a form of love.

So tell us, please, Chaz: What is ethics all about?

And I'd also like to hear how you have used Symbolic Logic to apply it to life. Are you familiar with the Logic of Entailments?

Kindly respond. I'd like to learn from you.

[chaz wyman]

...my constructive criticism is to reject your pseudo-logical gibberish and think about what ethics is all about.

Is that your idea of a constructive contribution??

I take it we can't agree on these three points offered at the outset in this thread.

Is it possible that what you call "gibberish" is your perception?

Obviously. I perceive that your link is full of meaningless gibberish.

The established science of Moral Psychology deals with grief. awe, disgust, patriotism and other feelings. It starts from ethical concepts but looks at them from a psychological point of view.

Moral Psychology is not and established science - it is no science in a meaningful sense.

When you see an uncountable number of properties in another person you are expressing a form of love.
No.
So tell us, please, Chaz: What is ethics all about?
Whatever it might be - it is not about counting beans, as you think it is.
And I'd also like to hear how you have used Symbolic Logic to apply it to life. Are you familiar with the Logic of Entailments?

Kindly respond. I'd like to learn from you.