Can we possibly agree on any of these points?

[prof]

I never claimed that Ethics was about counting beans, nor counting anything. Members have heard enough ignorance about Axiological Ethics from those who have no background in the field nor in how it has progressed.

I wanted to learn of another ethical theory; instead the response was: "Whatever it is about."

Isn't it about time that the name-calling ceases, and we get back to the topic of this Forum.

[chaz wyman]

I never claimed that Ethics was about counting beans, nor counting anything. Members have heard enough ignorance about Axiological Ethics from those who have no background in the field nor in how it has progressed.

I wanted to learn of another ethical theory; instead the response was: "Whatever it is about."

Isn't it about time that the name-calling ceases, and we get back to the topic of this Forum.

I did look at your link. You present a mathematico/logical view of moral issues: counting beans.
There is a gap between logic and reality.
Russell once declared the Ontological Proof sound, and yet he was an Atheist. Such should be enough for you to at least take a step backwards and actually ask your self by what rubric can you measure moral 'value'?
Things can be logically true and utterly false

[prof]

... actually ask your self by what rubric can you measure moral 'value'?
Things can be logically true and utterly false

Earlier in this thread Chaz said it would make no difference if he and I (and the other members of this Forum) agreed on specific values and moral principles because others in the world, in other cultures, do not agree.

We get pessimistic because we are unaware of the innovative breakthroughs in new social technologies that have world-changing implications. I was struck by how, this very day, 1950s classic U.S.A. cars are a craze in Jakarta, Indonesia, and how Western music has spread to the most unlikely places on the planet. Influences that begin in Western cultures can spread like wildfire. Ethical concepts and principlies can be among those influences. Let us not suffer from a lack of vision.

Peer progressive groups are crowd-sourcing a better tomorrow. What are they?
Peer progressive groups are networks where information and ideas progress in a near-limitless fashion from one person to the next. Political solutions do not have to originate from a hierarchical order but can come from the collective wisdom of citizens themselves. See the new book by Steven Johnson - FUTURE PERFECT, (2012).

While skeptical that these peer networks will solve problems as efficiently as asking a Watson computer how to do it, I am encouraged by the promise of peer networks and emergent forms of connection.
See: the very-last paragraph in this article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_%28 ... uture_uses
[Last modified October 4, 2012).

Also see: Demerest & Schoof - ANSWERING THE CENTRAL QUESTION (2012) for a description of the new technology known as axiogenics, which is an integration of brain neurology with formal axiology.

By keeping up with the latest emerging technologies we can avoid cynicism, we can stay optimistic and hopeful. We can keep our vision clear

[The Voice of Time]

It makes a big difference what we determine to be valuable as long as it has proper relations with nature. A point (relation to nature that is) on which I disagree mostly with Prof.

[chaz wyman]

It makes a big difference what we determine to be valuable as long as it has proper relations with nature. A point on which I disagree mostly with Prof.

"proper" - are you kidding? WHose version of proper is that?

[chaz wyman]

... actually ask your self by what rubric can you measure moral 'value'?
Things can be logically true and utterly false

Earlier in this thread Chaz said it would make no difference if he and I (and the other members of this Forum) agreed on specific values and moral principles because others in the world, in other cultures, do not agree.

We get pessimistic because we are unaware of the innovative breakthroughs in new social technologies that have world-changing implications. I was struck by how, this very day, 1950s classic U.S.A. cars are a craze in Jakarta, Indonesia, and how Western music has spread to the most unlikely places on the planet. Influences that begin in Western cultures can spread like wildfire. Ethical concepts and principlies can be among those influences. Let us not suffer from a lack of vision.

All viruses spread until they are swept aside by other viruses. Cultural viruses are no different. What's your point?
That the Western virus is the "RIGHT" one - like I said, already - we've heard this all before.

Peer progressive groups are crowd-sourcing a better tomorrow. What are they?
Peer progressive groups are networks where information and ideas progress in a near-limitless fashion from one person to the next. Political solutions do not have to originate from a hierarchical order but can come from the collective wisdom of citizens themselves. See the new book by Steven Johnson - FUTURE PERFECT, (2012).

While skeptical that these peer networks will solve problems as efficiently as asking a Watson computer how to do it, I am encouraged by the promise of peer networks and emergent forms of connection.
See: the very-last paragraph in this article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_%28 ... uture_uses
[Last modified October 4, 2012).

Also see: Demerest & Schoof - ANSWERING THE CENTRAL QUESTION (2012) for a description of the new technology known as axiogenics, which is an integration of brain neurology with formal axiology.

By keeping up with the latest emerging technologies we can avoid cynicism, we can stay optimistic and hopeful. We can keep our vision clear

[prof]

[/color]
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.

I ask members and guests here at the Forum who have read my posts - such as What Is Ethics? - here ...any of them....: Do you think that I believe that "Ethics is about counting beans"? Did any of you, besides Chaz, get that impression??

Of course not, because I never said it. My system of Ethics does not account for a child's tears. Does that make it useless? Did I ever say that one set of moral codes are the only ones, or that they are the only 'right' ones? Do I confuse mores with morals as some here do? Did I conflate "morality" with cultural (so-called-moral) practices? I hardly think so.
"Morality" as you have noted is a technical term in my system. The system deals with Individual Ethics as well as Social Ethics. And you surely observed that it is not confined to Western beliefs.

[chaz wyman]

[/color]
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.

I ask members and guests here at the Forum who have read my posts - such as What Is Ethics? - here ...any of them....: Do you think that I believe that "Ethics is about counting beans"? Did any of you, besides Chaz, get that impression??

I did not get the impression that you thought that Ethics was about counting beans. I did get the impression that you do indeed think of Ethics in that way , whether you realise it or not.
That impression was gleaned from following the link to that ridiculous bean-counting text.


"Morality" as you have noted is a technical term in my system. The system deals with Individual Ethics as well as Social Ethics. And you surely observed that it is not confined to Western beliefs.

No, but it is confined to your beliefs.
It is an autistic assessment of a complex esoteric field.

[prof]

I refer readers to Chapter 6, entitled "Elements of the Good Life" of this book:

Robert & Edward Skidelsky, HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH:Money and the good life (NY: Other Press, 2012).

It is very-well written and I recommend it highly. Give it your attention for it is the latest by a professor at the University of Exeter, collaborating with an Economics Professor Emeritus from The University of Warwick. It is getting rave reviews as having profound insights on ethics.

[The Voice of Time]

It makes a big difference what we determine to be valuable as long as it has proper relations with nature. A point on which I disagree mostly with Prof.

"proper" - are you kidding? WHose version of proper is that?

The version which is objectively determinable and which seems most reasonable to people.

[chaz wyman]

It makes a big difference what we determine to be valuable as long as it has proper relations with nature. A point on which I disagree mostly with Prof.

"proper" - are you kidding? WHose version of proper is that?

The version which is objectively determinable and which seems most reasonable to people.

Objectivity: the last refuge of the scoundrel.

[prof]

One who calls others "moron", "autistic", "scoundrel" obviously doesn't know the first thing about living the ethical life. [Where is the Moderator??]


According to the thorough and well-thought-out philosophical arguments by Robert and Edward Skidelsky, the prerequisite conditions for the good life in which we all flourish are these:

Health(which includes life itself);

Security;

Respect;

Harmony with nature;

Friendship;

Leisure;

and a cluster of Intrinsic values they dub Personality: this consists of
"the ability to frame and execute a plan of life reflective of one's tastes, temperament and conception of the good," along with:
Autonomy;
Individuality:
Spontaneity.

They devote two or three pages to each one, arguing in defense of each value as indispensable and belonging on the list of what they speak of as "basic goods" as elements of the good life. ...the life in which we truly flourish.

They show that these are universal, applying to every conscious human alive.

Their book is entitled HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? {See esp. Chapter 6, "Elements of the Good Life" pp. 145 to 179.} It brings the perspective of a trained economist and an ethicist who is a biographer of Ernst Cassirer - a philosopher who was also a cultural anthropologist.

Their insights have already been adopted and incorporated into the Unified Theory of Ethics. They - unlike some critics here - have made a constructive contribution to the field.

In a review of the book, Gregg Smith, wrote:
"The items comprising the good life cannot be bought or sold. The future is not one focusing on unending economic growth, but of re-balancing society to enable the pursuit of the good life by an increasing number of people."

---My view exactly

Can we - here at the Forum - possibly agree that we need politicians who set the (universal) good life as a goal and who have ethical principles as their guide rather than mere policy proposals? We ought strive to elect only such representatives, governors, and presidents.
And we need to exercise our power of the boycott to purchase only fair-trade, durable, high-quality, non-sweatshop-made consumer items. Let's encourage the use of robots and automation to replace as much labor as possible as rapidly as possible, while at the same time providing for a basic security, a floor of income, so as to liberate people, provide them leisure while we simultaneously stress, incentivize, and encourage innovation and creativity

p.s. I have recently learned that the price/per/watt of solar cells have come down to a point where they are now competitive with both coal and oil. This could be a great boon to our common environment here on planet Earth.

[chaz wyman]

One who calls others "moron", "autistic", "scoundrel" obviously doesn't know the first thing about living the ethical life. [Where is the Moderator??]

.

There was a very good article a few months back in PN, about the difference between moral and ethical. Moral is a specific set of rules - an ethical system pre-devised to be imposed upon others as it comes replete with a claimed objectivity, but bears no sensitivity to the local conditions nor reflects with any nuance the contingencies of action. Ethics is a more truly objective stance as it is s system which seeks to understand morals, it does not make those judgements, nor impose rules.
What you have is a misunderstanding - you have come to the thread with a moral system and ignored ethics entirely, but attempting to generalise your moral code as "ethical life'.
In doing so you have ignored the moral system of moderation in PN.

The moral code here is the permissiveness of the use of terms such as "moron", "autistic", "scoundrel", freedom of speech and expression, which as far as possible is applied unless it endangers an individual. Each person has the choice to accept and follow your moral code too. Should they choose to ignore it, then you have the right to criticise them, and continue to follow your own path as you see fit. You do not have the right to silence others, though you may choose to ignore them, or seek a different Forum as you like.
Might I suggest http://forums.philosophyforums.com/ which is quite similar in scale but has more of the moral indignation about rude words that you like?

[prof]

Chaz, my friend, isn't it so that folks will get further in life by being jovial than by being petty.


A moralist may have "a specific set of rules pre-devised to be imposed upon others."
This scribbler, yours truly, in contrast, is an Ethical scientist (i.e., one who is part of a team working on constructing a real science of Ethics to take a place alongside Physics.) In science all the definitions, terms, and relations are tentative, subject to revision when better models come along. Any principles derived are also subject to revision and improvement. Ethical theory is not to be confused with ethical practice ...with the actual living of the good life. To do so would be a fallacy of method.

Systemic thinking is often either-or thinking. Those who suffer from a (limited) belief system hold that values, and systems of values, must be either objective or subjective ...but cannot be both.

In contrast, a breakthrough in the 20th century by a polymath philosopher - and modified and updated by philosopher Peter Demerest in the 21st century - explains that those who have a preference for highly systemic thinking perhaps miss the point.

They insist that "value" is either subjective or objective; to them, it can’t be both. The wonder of Dr. Hartman’s work is that he proposed that IT IS BOTH – objective in nature and subjective in the human mind.


In Demerest's humble view, {and the following is an excerpt of a quotation from a letter to yours truly}:

"...The fundamental goal of life(s) is to bring our subjective spirit into greater alignment with the objective reality. Paradoxically, in doing so, we experience MORE of the intrinsic values, not less. Rather than becoming heartless, automatons, or “Vulcans” we become heart-FULL humans.

That the concept VALUE is both objective and subjective at the same time may be very difficult to grasp for a person who is dominated by systemic thinking. This especially may be the case when the concept of Value (moral) is confused with value (goodness). Both "morals" and "Value" after all, are - in a theory - systemic concepts.
In (the 2012 book just published) Answering The Central Question, we define (on page 90) “moral goodness” as when "something/someone “supports the creation of greater net value in reality.”.

In other words, since moral goodness can be ascribed to a conscious being, the action of a person is morally good when it has both the intention/purpose of creating the greatest net value AND the properties needed to actually do so. [Keep in mind our definition of “net” – namely: all things considered (pros and cons) for ALL people concerned (ourselves and others), both short and long term.]

More and more, I become confident that value dynamics is not linear, but rather, quite circular (S -> E -> I -> S -> E -> I -> S).
While (it is true that) I>E>S, “S” that adds value to “E”, adds value to “I.”
[More than] ...circular... ... Perhaps even fractal, rather than circular. Meaning within every S there exists and I, E, and S and within every I, there exists and S,E, and I.

When maximizing “I” (Quality of Life - QoL) is seen as the ultimate goal (Aristotle), then "I" is also the greatest good/value).

Max QoL is created when we have harmony on ALL three dimensions. Then there is no mutually exclusivity (I at the expense of S; or S at the expense of I).
{Be aware that} the highest goal is not the greatest value/good for the MOST people, but the greatest value for ALL people.

Yet, the pathway to such a life/world, will cause those in disharmony (all of us) to suffer as a result of our/their inner-disharmony. But through that suffering, when embraced as an opportunity, rather than threat, and with a desire to realize our greatest potential, we/they will grow.

And in that growing we also learn not to suffer. "

Thank you, Peter, for letting us witness the philosophical mind in action. You are one wide-awake individual

[chaz wyman]

Chaz, my friend, isn't it so that folks will get further in life by being jovial than by being petty.

Sadly this is not always the case. Is this your 'scientific finding"?


A moralist may have "a specific set of rules pre-devised to be imposed upon others."
This scribbler, yours truly, in contrast, is an Ethical scientist (i.e., one who is part of a team working on constructing a real science of Ethics to take a place alongside Physics.)

Morality is not, and never will be a science. You are not the first to try. Wiser man have realised that it is a fool's errand.

In science all the definitions, terms, and relations are tentative, subject to revision when better models come along. Any principles derived are also subject to revision and improvement. Ethical theory is not to be confused with ethical practice ...with the actual living of the good life. To do so would be a fallacy of method.

Systemic thinking is often either-or thinking. Those who suffer from a (limited) belief system hold that values, and systems of values, must be either objective or subjective ...but cannot be both.

In contrast, a breakthrough in the 20th century by a polymath philosopher - and modified and updated by philosopher Peter Demerest in the 21st century - explains that those who have a preference for highly systemic thinking perhaps miss the point.

They insist that "value" is either subjective or objective; to them, it can’t be both. The wonder of Dr. Hartman’s work is that he proposed that IT IS BOTH – objective in nature and subjective in the human mind.

Wrong, all value is BY nature subjective. The objective value is found by the agreement of the human subject, and is not in nature as you suggest. This Hartman is clearly philosophically naive.

In Demerest's humble view, {and the following is an excerpt of a quotation from a letter to yours truly}:

"...The fundamental goal of life(s) is to bring our subjective spirit into greater alignment with the objective reality. Paradoxically, in doing so, we experience MORE of the intrinsic values, not less. Rather than becoming heartless, automatons, or “Vulcans” we become heart-FULL humans.

It would require only one person to disagree with claimed objective statement for it to be challenged as objective.
I disagree. First I think it is a Theistic misunderstanding to assert ANY fundamental goal of life. And I think the claimed aim, where it has been attempted is evidently anti-human.
What you have here is an axiom, supported by no evidence.


That the concept VALUE is both objective and subjective at the same time may be very difficult to grasp for a person who is dominated by systemic thinking. This especially may be the case when the concept of Value (moral) is confused with value (goodness). Both "morals" and "Value" after all, are - in a theory - systemic concepts.
In (the 2012 book just published) Answering The Central Question, we define (on page 90) “moral goodness” as when "something/someone “supports the creation of greater net value in reality.”.

All value is primarily subjective, though it is possible, through agreement to devise objective criteria. Objective criteria do not pre-exist the human subject, they are not things to be uncovered, discovered or found. They are criteria to be devised, and will still be cross-culturally subjective.
If you do not understand this distinction, then you do not understand the subject/object distinction.
I am happy to discuss this problem, but until solved, discussing morality on the basis of objective criteria will be fruitless.


In other words, since moral goodness can be ascribed to a conscious being, the action of a person is morally good when it has both the intention/purpose of creating the greatest net value AND the properties needed to actually do so. [Keep in mind our definition of “net” – namely: all things considered (pros and cons) for ALL people concerned (ourselves and others), both short and long term.]

The Utilitarian assumption. Not objective. It has its good points but it is not a one size fits all solution to the vast and complex moral maelstrom.


More and more, I become confident that value dynamics is not linear, but rather, quite circular (S -> E -> I -> S -> E -> I -> S).
While (it is true that) I>E>S, “S” that adds value to “E”, adds value to “I.”
[More than] ...circular... ... Perhaps even fractal, rather than circular. Meaning within every S there exists and I, E, and S and within every I, there exists and S,E, and I.

When maximizing “I” (Quality of Life - QoL) is seen as the ultimate goal (Aristotle), then "I" is also the greatest good/value).


If you do not understand this distinction, then you do not understand the subject/object distinction.
I am happy to discuss this problem, but until solved, discussing morality on the basis of objective criteria will be fruitless.

Max QoL is created when we have harmony on ALL three dimensions. Then there is no mutually exclusivity (I at the expense of S; or S at the expense of I).
{Be aware that} the highest goal is not the greatest value/good for the MOST people, but the greatest value for ALL people.

Yet, the pathway to such a life/world, will cause those in disharmony (all of us) to suffer as a result of our/their inner-disharmony. But through that suffering, when embraced as an opportunity, rather than threat, and with a desire to realize our greatest potential, we/they will grow.



If you do not understand this distinction, then you do not understand the subject/object distinction.
I am happy to discuss this problem, but until solved, discussing morality on the basis of objective criteria will be fruitless.


And in that growing we also learn not to suffer. "

Thank you, Peter, for letting us witness the philosophical mind in action. You are one wide-awake individual