Is the new paradigm for Ethics better than the alternatives?

[prof]

Do you believe the ethical theory (proposed in THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS essay) is better than previous ethical theories because of the applications which can be deduced from its premises? I refer to applications such as guns, war, women's rights, jobs, medical ethics, and business ethics.

The booklet, THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS - - http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf - - has, by implication, an answer for the issue of gun-safety: It indicates we go in the direction of nonviolence, and thus questions the need for guns in urban areas. [If one does possess a gun, why not make it safe to use? Why not prevent those diagnosed with a mental illness, or severe depression, from buying a gun and/or ammunition?]

The proposed theory also has a response to the issue of waging war. It indicates we conscientiously object to participating in such.
It defines "war" as "organized mass murder in the name of a fine and noble cause," …fine causes such as, for example, "for Democracy," or "to end terrorism," etc.
It holds that we arrange to live in a world without war. [See the website by that title: World Without War.]

The theory indirectly also has a response to the issue of abortion. It suggests that nowadays, and into the future, due to advanced methods of birth control - and possibly due also to the apparent realism of virtual reality when it is devoted to porn - abortion is becoming increasingly unnecessary - and therefore no longer an issue.
It has implications, as well, for other issues of Applied Ethics.

It argues that automation tends to create more jobs; and it encourages society both to retrain people at no cost to the job-seeker (getting a small stipend while being retrained) for higher-tech work that society currently requires, as well as to recruit people for jobs that are urgently needed, such as teaching and nursing.

Also the book on THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS quotes Peter Singer on a resolution to some other moral dilemmas that he well-argued for in his book, HOW ARE WE TO LIVE?

The STRUCTURE book also has as chapter on Business Ethics, and lists Best places to work, and why they are.

So what is your opinion? Is this theory – which is still in its early stages - better than alternative ethical theories?

[Logik]

So what is your opinion? Is this theory – which is still in its early stages - better than alternative ethical theories?

The fundamental problem with all ethical theories. Is the discrepancy between the four kinds of "work"

* Work as imagined ( What humans say they WILL do )
* Work as prescribed ( What humans say they SHOULD )
* work as disclosed ( What humans SAY they did )
* Work as done ( What humans ACTUALLY did )

http://www.safetydifferently.com/the-va ... uman-work/

No ethical theory I have ever seen captures any of that.

Because the world is too complex/dynamic and things always change. What worked yesterday may stop working tomorrow.

The proposed theory also has a response to the issue of waging war. It indicates we conscientiously object to participating in such.
It defines "war" as "organized mass murder in the name of a fine and noble cause," …causes such as "for Democracy," or "to end terrorism," etc.
It holds that we arrange to live in a world without war.

Q.E.D Would you say that avoiding a foreign invasion is a "fine and noble cause" ?

There are plenty of pacifist societies to be found nowhere else but in the history books...

[prof]

Would you say that avoiding a foreign invasion is a "fine and noble cause" ?

Yeah. The Bush family did a great job keeping Saudi Arabians from violating the U.S.A. on 9/11.

Of course, let us avoid "a foreign invasion."
How? By engaging in a "Peace race" a contest we launch in which we boldly claim: Our nation is more peaceful than yours!!! Then we take steps to back that up with actions. At the same time we work actively on a campaign to sign non-aggression treaties with every other nation.

If the techniques used to avoid a foreign invasion are good enough for Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Switzerland -- then they are good enough for us
When will we ever learn?!

[Logik]

Would you say that avoiding a foreign invasion is a "fine and noble cause" ?

Yeah. The Bush family did a great job keeping Saudi Arabians from violating the U.S.A. on 9/11.

Of course, let us avoid "a foreign invasion."
How? By engaging in a "Peace race" a contest we launch in which we boldly claim: Our nation is more peaceful than yours!!! Then we take steps to back that up with actions. At the same time we work actively on a campaign to sign non-aggression treaties with every other nation.

If the techniques used to avoid a foreign invasion are good enough for Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Switzerland -- then they are good enough for us
When will we ever learn?!

Holy crap. What an elaborate strawman.



Have you seen where Sweden and Norway are on the map?

Can you look further than your nose and revisit the history books?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish%E ... War_(1814)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_in ... witzerland

The way you avoid invasion is by waging war against the invading army! Si vis pacem, para bellum.

If the Finns didn't kill a whole lot of Russians, do you think Russia would've stopped at Finland? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

Staying out of conflict is one thing. Avoiding invasion - entirely different.

[prof]

Here are the facts:

Finland has not been at war for the last 74 years.

Sweden and Norway have remained neutral, stayed out of war since August of 1814.

The French invasion of Switzerland ended in May, 1799.

I wanted a serious discussion in this thread. Instead a poster was captious and found ways to cavil.
I will not suggest that he is a troll. I will not judge him. I will refrain from that, although it would be tempting.

I leave it you, Readers, to decide if the objections given are irrelevant. I am proposing that the United States and Canada emulate the example set by these three countries who want to be known as Neutrals - who want to avoid participating in warfare. They provide a good model for others to copy.

Also see Steven Pinker - The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Ou ... merReviews

And check out this site: http://worldwithoutwar.com/
which is 'a guide to survival for the 21st century.'

[Logik]

Here are the facts:

Finland has not been at war for the last 74 years.
Sweden and Norway have remained neutral, stayed out of war since August of 1814.
The French invasion of Switzerland ended in May, 1799.

"Stayed out of war"

Such a subtle attempt to control the narrative.

You don't get to "stay out" of an INVASION. That's called surrendering.

Finland hasn't been INVADED again in the last 74 years.
Sweden and Norway haven't been INVADED again since 1814.
Switzerland hasn't been INVADED again since 1799.

If Russia was to invade Finland tomorrow, I am sure the Finns would do exactly the same thing they did 74 years go. Kill as many Russians as possible!

I notice that you ignored France, Poland and most of Europe from your "facts". I mean, the INVASIONS that took place during World War 2 sure wasn't even worth mentioning, right?

Of course, even alluding that those INVASIONS happened seems to undermine your argument.

I wanted a serious discussion in this thread. Instead a poster was captious and found ways to cavil.

Captious? Found ways to cavil ? Hahahaha.

Because your premise is that war is always immoral. Right! Right?

Fucking pacifist. If it were up to you we'd all be speaking German now.

A nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its laws made by cowards and its wars fought by fools -- Sir William Buttler

I will not suggest that he is a troll. I will not judge him. I will refrain from that, although it would be tempting.

And I will not suggest that you have absolutely no understanding of ethics, and therefore - no business writing about it.

Although, it would be tempting, given your ability to overlook the not-so-small details: Sometimes, war is an absolute moral necessity.

[Logik]

The proposed theory also has a response to the issue of waging war. It indicates we conscientiously object to participating in such.
It defines "war" as "organized mass murder in the name of a fine and noble cause,"

I am perfectly happy to participate in the "organized mass murder in the name of a fine and noble cause" when the noble cause is to maintain a nation's sovereignty against foreign invasion.

Ethics from a pacifist is like grandparenting advice from a 5 year old.

[prof]

logic wrote:

Of course, even alluding that those INVASIONS happened sure might destroy your argument.
... Sometimes, war is an absolute moral necessity.

In the 3rd post in this thread I wrote:

Of course, let us avoid "a foreign invasion."
How? By engaging in a "Peace race" a contest we launch in which we boldly claim: Our nation is more peaceful than yours!!! Then we take steps to back that up with actions. At the same time we work actively on a campaign to sign non-aggression treaties with every other nation.

The discipline of Ethics suggests - recommends - (based upon its very definition of "Ethics" as: the perspective on individuals and groups wherein one Intrinsically-values them) that to 'fight' we engage in Nonviolent Direct Action. This takes creativity and may involve sabotage, etc. It is a fact that such campaigns result in less of a loss of life than a violent one would. See in history how the Danish Underground employed clever techniques to undermine the German occupation.

We can learn from past experience. See the work of Dr. Gene Sharp, of the Albert Einstein Institute in Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.
He compiled some of the successful nonviolent campaigns, as did Alan Knight Chalmers, the author of the book, Courage in Both Hands.

Note how Gandhi drove the British out of India, thus causing them to relinquishing the jewel of their empire.


I am still seeking a serious discussion, one without ad hominem fallacies, a respectful one, a philosophical one. After all, this is a Philosophy forum, n'est pas?

Your views, folks.....

[Logik]

Note how Gandhi drove the British out of India, thus causing them to relinquishing the jewel of their empire.

*sigh* stop bending history to suit your argument

The forgotten violence that helped India break free from colonial rule
South Africa's path to freedom was an armed/violent one.

The only reason you get to put Gandhi and Mandela on a pedestal is because others were DOING violence in the background, while they got to preach for peace.

You are dangerously naive.

Successful non-violent campaigns Correlation is not causation.

I am still seeking a serious discussion, one without ad hominem fallacies, a respectful one, a philosophical one. After all, this is a Philosophy forum, n'est pas?

I am engaging you in Philosophy, prof. With facts and everything. I don't know how to remain "respectful" to somebody who keeps bending the truth by cherry-picking the facts to suit their bias.

This is just a lame attempt at No True Scottsman fallacy.

[Gary Childress]

Finland has not been at war for the last 74 years.
Sweden and Norway have remained neutral, stayed out of war since August of 1814.
The French invasion of Switzerland ended in May, 1799.

Norway was invaded by Germany in 1940.

[frosteagle]

No. People rely on heuristic, simple thought, and normative ethical theory is simple enough for the "common man" to implement.