This makes it an empty platitude.LukeS wrote:I agree that well being is good. That seems almost to be true by definition.
It's like saying that what is right is good and what is wrong is bad.
To which the only response is DAHHH.
This makes it an empty platitude.LukeS wrote:I agree that well being is good. That seems almost to be true by definition.
Exactly!chaz wyman wrote:The flaw in this is the phrase "personal well-being".
Hitler's personal well being amounts to the suffering of others.
No one is capable of making his personal well-being, the wellness of ALL others.
There are no universal standards to this, and you ought to suspect the motives of any who claim that there is. Hitler was one of them.
Notvacka wrote:I choose the words "good", "evil", "right" and "wrong" to show how morality emerges and what morality is, by making these clear and useful definitions:
good = what I want
evil = what I don't want
right = what others want
wrong = what others don't want
The need for morality and morality itself emerges when we discover that good doesn't always equal right and evil does not always equal wrong.
It follows from the definitions that when two people disagree on a moral issue, they must both be wrong, because what others want is defined as right. This is also consistent with the only useful definition of objectivity as common agreement. Only when we agree can we be right on a moral issue.
It also follows from the definitions that what we should strive for is what's both right and good, something that can be achieved by wanting what others want, or by making others want what we want. The Buddhist solution, to not want anything at all, is an interesting third option.
I glad we are of an accord.prof wrote:Chaz
I was thrilled to learn, by viewing your post in some other thread, that you are a strong supporter of the trade union movement !!! We have that in common.
Since the phrase "universal ethical standards" has not been rigorously defined, nor defined at all, it is vague and amorphous, and thus I can understand how people can honestly disagree about whether there are any.
One chap can insist "are" and another can insist "are not" and they can go back and forth like two little kids.
I suspect we both want to empower people from 'the bottom up' rather than wait and hope for a trickle to come down on us from those who have managed to concentrate great wealth, the billionaires who comprise the 0.01 per cent of society. We want to facilitate upward mobility and free and open opportunity for anyone to rise to a point where they have at least a minimum level of comfort that sets them free to express their inner potential to create and innovate.
It is the set of readers here that I've been addressing, not the Pashtun in Afghanistan or the dictator of Uzbekistan or the one in Singapore. If we here 'clean up our act' a bit, form wider coalitions, and find ways to educate the next generation as to their enlightened self-interest that will have been progress enough for now. So stop looking for flaws and try instead to be constructive; and build something ... that tends to support a quality life for all, one that makes them happy, healthy, and highly moral, with a sense of solidarity for their brothers and sisters all over the planet. Many villagers in Indonesia already have it even though they lack money.
All people, hopefully.prof wrote:Which of the Ethical principles derived from the Unified Theory of Ethics do not apply to which people?
}
We never tried teaching the Hartman/Katz ethical theory before. It is rather new.chaz wyman wrote:All people, hopefully.prof wrote:Which of the Ethical principles derived from the Unified Theory of Ethics do not apply to which people?
We've tried this sort of thing before, and we've fought many wars because if it: The wars of the Reformation, Civil Wars, Revolutions, ad nauseum...
I'll get back to you.prof wrote:We never tried teaching the Hartman/Katz ethical theory before. It is rather new.chaz wyman wrote:All people, hopefully.prof wrote:Which of the Ethical principles derived from the Unified Theory of Ethics do not apply to which people?
We've tried this sort of thing before, and we've fought many wars because if it: The wars of the Reformation, Civil Wars, Revolutions, ad nauseum...
It shares the same naive totalitarianism, and is a plea for a closed society.
We never fought any wars because of it. Those wars were fought in the name of some fine ideal -- but they certainly were NOT fought "because of" an ethical system about which people never heard of at the time. What does it mean to say that a war (organized mass-murder) was fought because of a system that teaches that only moral means ought to be employed to reach our ends (goals), and a system that advocates that everyone conscientiously object to war, since that is a logical conclusion of the very definition of the term "Ethics.".
Have you even glanced at the system, Chaz.
I doubt it !!
Yet, in your cynicism you hurl charges around. Please, give peace a chance. That's all we are asking.
Ha! You mean give one man a chance to impose a system on all regardless of their cultural positioning?
The proposed Ethical system does not give all the answers, but it might raise the right questions.
Check it out - the whole theory - before 'tearing it apart to shreds.'
Universal is the antithesis of cultural diversity.prof wrote: It admires cultural diversity.
Chaz, my friendchaz wyman wrote:Universal is the antithesis of cultural diversity.prof wrote: It admires cultural diversity.
Wouldn't that be the need arises for politics not ethics? As ones ethics and morals are exactly the source for much conflict.Notvacka wrote:When my own personal well being (what I want) conflicts with the personal well being of others (what they want) the need for ethics arise. ...
Well, demanding ethical behaviour from others is politics. The need for politics arises when the need for ethics is not met, which is most of the time. As I see it, not putting your own personal well being before the well being of others is what ethics is about. And this is something you take upon yourself, primarily. The rest is politics.Arising_uk wrote:Wouldn't that be the need arises for politics not ethics? As ones ethics and morals are exactly the source for much conflict.Notvacka wrote:When my own personal well being (what I want) conflicts with the personal well being of others (what they want) the need for ethics arise. ...