Do you know your own self-interest?

[prof]

.... Don't worry about your mum for now, just find some dirt (a small pile, enough to fill a shoe box), and tell me exactly how many properties that pile of dirt contains. Don't leave any out,

Flash, Are you one of those who rates Rik Waller as a better voice, singing "I Will Always Love You" than the voice of Whitney Houston singing the same musical number? 'Fess up. You like his voice better, right?



https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ri ... ve+you&vie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JWTaaS7LdU

- .- - - - - -


...Now that was misdirection

A kind mentor ought to say to Flash, If you want to be a serious student of Philosophy you ought to do your homework; you should do some reading of original sources, studying carefully what a profound professional Philosopher is writing. Look up his bio. Follow through with references and leads to dig further, and do all this without jumping to conclusions.

For example, if you had bothered to read the (highly-capsulized) selection entitled SCIENCE OF VALUE in Wikipedia you would have found, toward the end, this quotation:

Many would dispute the idea that the number of properties of a thing can in any meaningful way be enumerated, but this is something Hartman never said was necessary

.

He did, though, for teaching purposes, start out by defining a chair, mentioning only four properties; but then he immediately proceeded to show that by adding together different evaluations of that chair the outcome was a lot more than four; and that there was a lesson in this about the nature of valuation: it often has what economists speak of as “a multiplier effect.” For, as Hartman put it, “value is a play with properties, just as (the composition of) music is a play with sounds. To be creative is to compose value. Creativity is the rearrangement of known components in a novel way; it is a restructuring of properties. Hartman was very creative.


“A critic is to a creator as a pigeon is to a monument erected in honor of that creator.”

[henry quirk]

"To be creative is to compose value."

Indeed. So, the question is: should I rely on the formulaic standards of the community to determine value (standards arrived at by technocrats and the like), or, suss out, for myself, what is valuable to me?

You seem to lean toward a communal formula; I lean toward the idiosyncratic.

How to resolve our differences?

You seem to believe if I contemplated on things, I would naturally adopt your view. I, of course, disagree.

Your view, for it to come to pass, requires a degree of domestication I find unacceptable. But, no doubt you'll get exactly what you want, if the current crop of young folks is an indicator of anything, which leaves you and yours with the task of what to do with people like me.

Eugenics is a tricksy endeavor and you gotta deal with the atavistic if you hope to profit.

[prof]

Henry,

I've often wondered, why do you come to an Ethical Theory site???

You know hat I encourage individuality in my theory. See, for instance, the last chapter in Basic Ethics.

I am interested in your motive for being at this forum. You seem to have no use for theory. Your ethics, as I understand it, is to stand in your doorway with your rifle and shoot anyone that approaches.

Is that ethics

[FlashDangerpants]

A kind mentor ought to say to Flash, If you want to be a serious student of Philosophy you ought to do your homework; you should do some reading of original sources, studying carefully what a profound professional Philosopher is writing. Look up his bio. Follow through with references and leads to dig further, and do all this without jumping to conclusions.

A kinder mentor still would probably advise prof to be less patronizing. Can you manage that prof?

For example, if you had bothered to read the (highly-capsulized) selection entitled SCIENCE OF VALUE in Wikipedia you would have found, toward the end, this quotation:[/b]

Many would dispute the idea that the number of properties of a thing can in any meaningful way be enumerated, but this is something Hartman never said was necessary

.
Well I am sorry if Hartman never said it was necessary. But he does need to establish it is meaningful to discuss enumerating qauanties of things when one wishes to base ones entire theory on quantities of same.

So xplain how these quantities are to be measured.

[artisticsolution]

Hi Prof,

As m7ch as I hate to admit it, I'm siding a little towards Henry's argument. I have lived my life being the way you describe...never really understandingredients the other point of view. Giving giving giving in the hope that people will deal with me the way I deal with them...by kindness. But I have learned there are just a handful of people who understand the beauty of giving. The majority see it as weakness.

Henry is completely right in his assessment of you philosophy. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. I have learned this the hard way.

Now I have changed. I prefer to be around people who appreciate me. I love showering them with kindness, equality, love , because they appreciate it and their personality is like mine...the give right back.

The world is not designed that way unfortunately. 90% of people will hoard their food, shelter, Healthcare benefits, etc. They simply are not interested in helping anyone other than themselves...which is their prerogative.

It is not our place to insist they do.

Sure...it would be a better world. But that's neither here nor there. It's Not going to happen. If fact, the more we push, the more resentful they get.

There are people in my life whom I love very much. I have given them everything...done anything. I've basically treated them like children. Shame on me.

I did not treat them like adults. I did not show them the respect they deserve.

Now I'm making an attempt to stop trying to mold them into the people I would like them to be. If they need to stand out on the corner with a sign that says, "will work for food", then so be it. I will always love them, but I won't be able to respect their 'work' ethic. But it's sometimes what you have to do to respect another's persons wishes to live the life they desire to live.

[prof]

Hi Prof,

... 90% of people will hoard their food, shelter, Healthcare benefits, etc. They simply are not interested in helping anyone other than themselves..

Hi, artistic

What you've done here is state the problem (except for the part where you decided to hang out with people who are responsive to your kindness and consideration of them) and that is why we need Ethical Theory - perhaps not for this current generation, but for the future generations of youngsters.

As you may know, my new paradigm for Ethics is counting on the design and development of new "ethical technologies" such as improved techniques of education, that will reach children when they are very young in their formative years. ...still willing to learn. And new and better methods of parenting too. ...for those who seek them, in order to do a better job of child-rearing.

My theory encourages creativity and innovation, as just some of the many ways to add value. Recall that in my writings and posts here I recommend that we "squeeze every drop of value out of life." This means that we, who grasp the system that is being proposed, will aim to optimize the (amount of) value in life - in order to achieve a Quality Life. We want it for everyone, but all we can really do is set a good example, be role models. If people respond, fine!

I look at myself as akin to a farmer, planting seeds. If one of them takes root, the project has been a success. If they fall on hard soil, and are unable to sprout, I understand, and forgive.

You are right to teat the addicts and druggies of this world as adults. They are handicapped adults who need programs of rehab, such as AA type programs. If these treatments don't work, then they become the homeless and live on the streets.

We can support the policies that seek to encourage more rehabilitation centers, as well as mental-health centers, and then support these places with our time and money once they are created. The handicapped need a safety net; though not all of them will take advantage of the government efforts.
Some will define themselves as normal, and will be strong, and independent, and will forge out a life for themselves - just as some individuals become entrepreneurs while the majority look for a job.

Socrates was right when he taught: Know yourself! Hartman added: Accept yourself (warts and all.) Create yourself [i.e., find out what your talents and gifts are (your strengths) and then develop them to the hilt. Finally, Give yourself! which means: express your gifts, offering them to the public and to the world at large.

All the while, let us be conscious that our Self is not fixed, not static but dynamic; it can keep making progress throughout our life. My system urges continuous self-improvement. And what I speak of as 'morality' is authenticity ... your self (your behavior) is to match your Self (your set of ideals, your value-structure, your principles - all of which comprise your self-concept.)

This is how you pursue your self-interest

What do you think?
.

[henry quirk]

"Your ethics, as I understand it, is to stand in your doorway with your rifle and shoot anyone that approaches."

No, just the ones who don't stop when I tell 'em to.

[artisticsolution]

Hi Prof,

... 90% of people will hoard their food, shelter, Healthcare benefits, etc. They simply are not interested in helping anyone other than themselves..

What you've done here is state the problem
.

No, what I've done here is state the nature of the beast.

There are people in the world who have parented children in the world exactly the way you would want them to. There are really good parents out there...ethical parents...and still, there are no guarantees they will have ethical children. As are there, unethical parents who have raised ethical children.

There is little rhyme or reason. And whats more, the desire to break free of ones parents hold and live a life of ones choosing is so strong, that often children will do the opposite of a parents teaching, if only to be free of parental oppression.

It would be the same with your system...because that is what nature does.

Sorry to tell you...but in all of nature...the ethical 'gene' is very rare. You and I are very lucky to possess it. Clearly, as a philosopher, you must at least consider that this may be true. You must weigh all the data if you want an honest conclusion.

Your ethical solution just might be a pie in the sky dream.

[prof]

what I've done here is state the nature of the beast.
...Sorry to tell you...but in all of nature...the ethical 'gene' is very rare. You and I are very lucky to possess it.
Your ethical solution just might be a pie in the sky dream.

I've heard that said once or twice before....

Tell me, artisticsolution, have you by any chance read pages 21-27 pf BASIC ETHICS where I take up this very subject? The section is called "Does human nature change?" It begins with a quote from Rush M. Kidder who was the C.E.O. of The Institute for Global Ethics. See - http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz

It continues with a further report of cultural evolution and ethical progress. You will very likely enjoy perusing it. Happy reading

[artisticsolution]

Okay...I read it...your "facts" aren't entirely facts. More and more people don't give a shit about things making sense anymore...they care about winning at all costs. Even when common sense tells them something is not ethical...if it benefits them...then it is eth8cal in their eyes.

I have a dear friend who is Republican who recently went to a counsel meeting for her neighborhood. As it turned out she lost. The majority of the votes that night were in favor of her side. Only one was against it. The one vote won because he had money behind him.

My friend thought this was completely unfair. So did I.

Then we started talking about something else. Long story short the conversation took ano ironic turn.

I asked my friend if trump only got 10 votes and Hillary got 500. Would you be glad he won even by a rigged election or would you protest based on principal?

She said she'd be happy he won.

I told her that if hillary only got 10 votes and trump 500...and they chose hillary as president, I would be very unhappy. Because right is right. In my mind, ethics out weigh desire. In my mind, if things are just...they will work for everyone .

But why is this so? Cheating to get what you want might work for you in the long run. I mean on a practical scale.

It seems to me this is how the world works anymore. It seems to me your chapter is behind the times. People are winning in Groves being deceitful and underhanded. Just look at Fox news and how they've turned folks that wouldn't say shit if they had a mouthful into people who think it's ethical to win at any cost because the end result is success. Success is its own reward.

I hate to be the one to tell you but we are out numbered.

Henry is right. Trump is right. Ethics =weakness because you can't cheat when you are devoted to being ethical...and cheaters always win.

[prof]

Okay...I read it.... More and more people don't give a shit about things making sense anymore...they care about winning at all costs. Even when common sense tells them something is not ethical

I have a dear friend who is Republican who ... As it turned out she lost. The majority of the votes that night were in favor of her side. Only one was against it. The one vote won ...

I asked my friend if trump only got 10 votes and Hillary got 500. Would you be glad he won even by a rigged election or would you protest based on principal?

She said she'd be happy he won.

I told her that if hillary only got 10 votes and trump 500...and they chose hillary as president, I would be very unhappy. Because right is right. In my mind, ethics out weigh desire. In my mind, if things are just...they will work for everyone .

... Cheating to get what you want might work for you in the long run.
It seems to me..... people who think it's ethical to win at any cost because the end result is success.

I hate to be the one to tell you but we are out numbered.

Henry is right. Trump is right. .... cheaters always win.

Your friend helped you be more aware about the Republican mindset. "The end justifies the means" is a cognition widely held among them. During the Cold War we used to mock the Soviets for living by this doctrine. That belief is an Ethical fallacy.

Be careful not to fall into the trap of cynicism. ! It solves no problems; gets us nowhere. Who needs it
Do not make the mistake of over-generalizing, that is, generalizing from just a few examples. The followers of Trump are just a minority in this nation; they come from fear and pain. Compared with you, they fall at the opposite end of the bell curves for intelligence and for empathy. They are insensitive; you have sensitivity. They are dogmatic. Some of them are cruel. You have a strong moral sense.

Thank you for reading a bit in the Ethics document; it shows you have an open mind to new ideas. Even better would be if you had read further and learned more about how the system works - and how widely applicable the Value Dimensions are to explaining and ordering traditional data from the history of ethical inquiry. Elements from Moral Philosophy then fall into place, and are well-ordered.

Once one gains a feeling for the logical, existential Hierarchy of Value, one knows how to prioritize things relevant to living a Quality Life. One then makes better decisions, and has better judgment.

Here is that quotation from the late President of The Institute for Global Ethics. See: https://www.globalethics.org/

When it was still right to own slaves, it was already wrong to eat people. When it had become wrong to own slaves, it was still right to possess women as property. When that became wrong it was still all right to blow cigarette smoke in your neighbor's face.
Now, with smoking in disgrace, it is still all right to use and dispose of polystyrene foam cups, regardless of their long-term effects on the environment. More changes, clearly, are in the works.

--Rushworth Kidder

[henry quirk]

"Your friend helped you be more aware about the Republican mindset. "The end justifies the means" is a cognition widely held among them."

Yep, just like when higher ups among the Democrats slanted the system to blunt Bernie in favor of Hillary. To hell with what 'the people' want...to hell with the democratic process.

Say what you like about Republicans, but be honest about it, Prof. All the opposition to Trump was out in the open, out front...no one tried to swipe the vote from him behind closed doors.

I'd say, at least in this matter, Republicans were/are far more 'ethical' than Democrats.

Don't you agree?

[artisticsolution]

Okay...I read it.... More and more people don't give a shit about things making sense anymore...they care about winning at all costs. Even when common sense tells them something is not ethical

I have a dear friend who is Republican who ... As it turned out she lost. The majority of the votes that night were in favor of her side. Only one was against it. The one vote won ...

I asked my friend if trump only got 10 votes and Hillary got 500. Would you be glad he won even by a rigged election or would you protest based on principal?

She said she'd be happy he won.

I told her that if hillary only got 10 votes and trump 500...and they chose hillary as president, I would be very unhappy. Because right is right. In my mind, ethics out weigh desire. In my mind, if things are just...they will work for everyone .

... Cheating to get what you want might work for you in the long run.
It seems to me..... people who think it's ethical to win at any cost because the end result is success.

I hate to be the one to tell you but we are out numbered.

Henry is right. Trump is right. .... cheaters always win.

Your friend helped you be more aware about the Republican mindset. "The end justifies the means" is a cognition widely held among them. During the Cold War we used to mock the Soviets for living by this doctrine. That belief is an Ethical fallacy.

Be careful not to fall into the trap of cynicism. ! It solves no problems; gets us nowhere. Who needs it
Do not make the mistake of over-generalizing, that is, generalizing from just a few examples. The followers of Trump are just a minority in this nation; they come from fear and pain. Compared with you, they fall at the opposite end of the bell curves for intelligence and for empathy. They are insensitive; you have sensitivity. They are dogmatic. Some of them are cruel. You have a strong moral sense.

Thank you for reading a bit in the Ethics document; it shows you have an open mind to new ideas. Even better would be if you had read further and learned more about how the system works - and how widely applicable the Value Dimensions are to explaining and ordering traditional data from the history of ethical inquiry. Elements from Moral Philosophy then fall into place, and are well-ordered.

Once one gains a feeling for the logical, existential Hierarchy of Value, one knows how to prioritize things relevant to living a Quality Life. One then makes better decisions, and has better judgment.

Here is that quotation from the late President of The Institute for Global Ethics. See: https://www.globalethics.org/

When it was still right to own slaves, it was already wrong to eat people. When it had become wrong to own slaves, it was still right to possess women as property. When that became wrong it was still all right to blow cigarette smoke in your neighbor's face.
Now, with smoking in disgrace, it is still all right to use and dispose of polystyrene foam cups, regardless of their long-term effects on the environment. More changes, clearly, are in the works.

--Rushworth Kidder

Thank you for your kindness. I have an ethical dilemma. In my mind, I think it is a crime to force people to behave as you would want them to. I have usually been the type of person who does not punish a person if they wrong me. I usually give them another chance and if they do it more than once or twice (depending on how much I love them) I simply go on my merry way and not allow them to continue the harm. Simple, clean, and i still can love without allowing the abuse.

I find this approach more in keeping with my ethics. I am a strong believer in the "tread lightly" approach to living. I do not appreciate people interfering with my rainbows and lollipop existence and I am fair minded enough to realize that not everyone wants to live life the way I live mine so I try not to interfere with theirs .

I think it would be unethical of me to demand they do my bidding...or take them from their pursuit of what I would consider a horrid life of decisions that I believe will make them unhappy in the long run. I can watch them self implode, know exactly why they self imploded, but know it would be unethical for me to stop them. Why? Because they deserve a chance to try. They deserve a chance to make mistakes and learn. In fact, for some...that is what freedom is all about...it is excitement...it is exhilarating making waves in life...living on the edge, taking chances and being responsible for your own life...even if that life contains great sorrow. I get it...I really do. I have respect for the mindset believe it or not.

However, I have also been a victim of that mindset when I was younger. I was unable to handle it but was dependent for awhile. I am no longer dependent and see no need to allow that behavior in my home. It's way too much drama for me. And I see it as nonsense drama...that could have been avoided by ethical behavior. But there's the rub... for some, a life without drama is not a life. They crave the passion. The love rocking the boat to see if they can make ripples. They need to know their existence matters. It would be unethical of me not to let them have their fun.

That's what this is all about Prof. The problem you see is people's fear of a life of nothingness...a life that does not matter. I have a purpose because I am an artist. I feel I exist for a reason. I make ripples with my art...and when I am dead...my art will live on. My life mattered because I was able to leave a part of me behind. I did not need to seek passion outside of myself.

This is my ethical dilemma, I can't demand people to be ethical and still allow them the freedom to live their own lives. As long as they don't hurt me directly and intentionally. Then I refuse to tell them how to live. Sure, I may voice my opinion of their folly sometimes...cause I just think they're fucking stupid....and of course, I deserve the right to exist in my home the way I desire...to the exclusion of anyone who does not share that desire. My house my rules...But that's just me. Live and let live...as long as you don't directly screw with my rainbows and lollipops...cause I gave at the office thank you.

[artisticsolution]

"Your friend helped you be more aware about the Republican mindset. "The end justifies the means" is a cognition widely held among them."

Yep, just like when higher ups among the Democrats slanted the system to blunt Bernie in favor of Hillary. To hell with what 'the people' want...to hell with the democratic process.

Say what you like about Republicans, but be honest about it, Prof. All the opposition to Trump was out in the open, out front...no one tried to swipe the vote from him behind closed doors.

I'd say, at least in this matter, Republicans were/are far more 'ethical' than Democrats.

Don't you agree?

The difference is, Trump blew them all out of the water. He was the clear winner. what was it...like 50 point leads and shit? I even told my republican sis, if Trump didn't get the nomination her party had ways bigger worries than a president. Still, I have a feeling at the end, the republicans who jumped ship, will bring out a 3rd party candidate which would be pure evil genius if you ask me. Because that would take votes from Hillary and trump. Cause lets face it...people are stupid and love to vote for a blank slate they can falsely attribute all their dreams. It matters not what the person is actually for ...as long as they don't let the people know...the people will fill in the blanks for themselves. Cause that's how stupid people are.

In the case of Hillary and Bernie. They were closely tied throughout the entire campaign. She pulled ahead in the end and won it fair and square.

It would be unethical to not concede that fact.

[henry quirk]

"She pulled ahead in the end and won it fair and square.

There's evidence to suggest she pulled ahead only cuz the powers in the Dem party -- again -- blunted Bernie in favor of her. If instead those powers had acted as the neutral facillitators they were supposed to be it's possible Bernie woulda won the nomination. And I point this out as a Bernie opposer...he's a friggin' *commie, which is, in my book, just about the worst thing a body can be.









*yeah, I know, he calls himself a socialist or a social democrat...from where I sit, it's all the same horrorshow