Furthermore, what properties to do you believe a good ethical theory would have?
I would very much appreciate any light you could shed on this topic
![Exclamation :!:](./images/smilies/icon_exclaim.gif)
Thank you.
Thanks so much, SoS, for a fine, well-thought-out contribution.Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:21 pm State the definition of what morality is and show how said definition has been or can be objectively accomplished in reality. If you're claiming that an invisible basis exists which assigns an intrinsic good/evil to something in the world, show how that basis has existential quantification and can actually be conceived in a hypothetical universe.
The first part about an accomplished definition, I assume you mean, not an 'invisible standard'.prof wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:14 am What you request has already been done ... by the ethical theory known as the new paradigm for Ethics, the Hartman/Katz theory. See - http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz
In that same paper,for the definition of the term "morality" and how it can be translated into real-life conduct, see pp. 29-35.
Are you actually doing some reading in the works cited??Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2017 4:09 am [
At first I thought... but I see what you did there
Yes, that's true.Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:41 am I'm not sure I'm catching on ... Maybe I haven't read through enough...
As I was replying to more of your comment, I had to look back to read through it more carefully. I actually started to understand more of the gist of it as I wrote on.prof wrote:Yes, that's true.
The system offered integrates Consequentialist concepts with Deontological concepts with Virtue Theory concepts with Shinto and Confucius concepts. Consequentialism has evolved from Utilitarianism, as you know.
I understand that, but I'm just not convinced that's the same good and bad (quality) usually spoken about in the concept of morality. I'm also not convinced that working to be the most congruent self would always lead to positive outcomes. I think that my objection to your murderer example still stands.prof wrote:A principle that is derived early on is: Do no harm. The empirical studies show that we don't always live up to our highest principles. Furthermore, the data reveals that we (98% of us) are aware of this fact, and that we regret it. Ideally we would like to comply with our moral principles, but do not manage to do so.
The science predicts that If you do aim to reduce needless suffering for yourself and others, you will have a higher quality life - according to your own evaluation - than if you did not.
No one was attempting to convince you it is the same. The term "morality" in the new paradigm for Ethics means something akin to authenticity; it is defined in the system in a very dynamic sense as meaning " one's conduct increasingly matching one's belief system (with regard to moral standards), and these beliefs themselves are expanding as one grows in moral insight - insight as to how ethical a human being can become."Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:02 pmI understand that, but I'm just not convinced that's the same good and bad (quality) usually spoken about in the concept of morality....prof wrote:A principle that is derived early on is: Do no harm. The empirical studies show that we don't always live up to our highest principles. Furthermore, the data reveals that we (98% of us) are aware of this fact, and that we regret it. Ideally we would like to comply with our moral principles, but do not manage to do so.
The science predicts that If you do aim to reduce needless suffering for yourself and others, you will have a higher quality life - according to your own evaluation - than if you did not.
The problem with that is you start to sway from the same morality everyone else is talking about. You can re-define linguistics of any given idea in order to correspond with a logically valid notion, but that's not to say it's the same idea anymore. However, you seem to be looking for already established semantic rules in order to prove that it really means something else akin to 'authenticity', which would still sway it away from the same 'meaning' of morality, even in something like JSM "principle of utility". Certainly when talking about morality in something like divine command.prof wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:17 am No one was attempting to convince you it is the same. The term "morality" in the new paradigm for Ethics means something akin to authenticity; it is defined in the system in a very dynamic sense as meaning " one's conduct increasingly matching one's belief system (with regard to moral standards), and these beliefs themselves are expanding as one grows in moral insight - insight as to how ethical a human being can become."
As to "what is usually spoken about", this is vague, ambiguous, and confused. Like the word "socialism" there are about 20 definitions at least for the word "morality" in common usage; so why hold that (example of poor communication) up as something to which we ought to aspire?
I was suggesting that according to your own moral philosophy, murder may not even be wrong when considering the 'complete' priority of one; That a murderer affirms his own life very specifically. It's a selfish one, but not irrational as far as I can tell. I think you can only get in a way he affirms life yet is betraying that value by being willing to take life by ignoring the nuance of human psychology and blanketing it into principles in a way that leaves out the pragmatic details. In fact with this considered, I'm not sure anything would ever be wrong because human psychology never contradicts itself in such a way.Yes it does. Are you contending though that there is nothing unethical about a murderer? My view is that a murderer is mixed up in his (or her) values, and is violating the Logical Order of Priorities, standing the derived scientific formula on its head - that formula that you learned about in the early pages of BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach.
The murderer also violates the very defining perspective of Ethics itself, which is that each conscious individual is to be seen as an uncountably-high value not to be defiled.
Thus each normal person deserves positive regard and the kind of respect you would give to any priceless treasure of value. ...IF you are (or would be) ethical
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:38 pmThe problem with that is you... re-define ...given idea in order to correspond with a logically valid notion ...prof wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:17 am There are about 20 vague and ambiguous definitions for the word "morality" in common usage.. In contrast, the term "morality" in the new paradigm for Ethics is defined in the system in a very dynamic sense as meaning "one's conduct increasingly matching one's belief system (with regard to moral standards), and these beliefs themselves are expanding as one grows in moral insight - insight as to how ethical a human being can become."
I'm not sure anything would ever be wrong ...
..Just trying to follow your line of thinking.