Reasoning to a practical, moral conclusion

[prof]

Since to be what you are supposed to is to be "good," then it follows that any individual who is what he or she is supposed to be is good under the concept in question. Here the concept we are concerned with is Ethics.

If - as indeed is the case according to surveys made by The Institute for Global Ethics - people on Earth when asked what it means to be an ethical person - a morally-good person - respond that it would be someone who is honest, fair (instead of cheating), and responsible [and these are all a matter of degree] then this implies that if an individual is thoroughly honest, fair, and responsible, s/he is a really good person.

If such an individual has these additional qualities: empathic, generous, readiness to be of service, altruistic, sincere, accountable, etc., we would be justified in claiming that individual is morally excellent. And if these traits are true descriptions of the individual over time we may speak of him or her as having "integrity."

If it is reasonable then to say that a person of integrity is a person of good character, then if you have integrity you are a person of good character. If you devote yourself to this ideal, to this norm for your life, and are committed to it then I feel justified in deducing that you are ethical and are a part of the answer rather than a part of the problem.

For the problem in this world now is that there are not enough ethical people. So you are invited to become a part of the solution by making this commitment.


As to applications of moral theory, see the book DIVIDED by David Cay Johnson. It explains how to get into action to make this a better U.S.A. Here is a link to some reviews: http://www.amazon.com/Divided-Perils-Ou ... merReviews


Comments? Questions?

[Dalek Prime]

Honest question. Are ethics the same as morals? Seems ethics are external, and morals, internal.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

[prof]

Thank you, dalek, for an honest question. I shall give you an honest answer. [I accept the definition of "morals" which diffen gave on their web-page. However, I am not a moralist. I am a teacher. Ethics is my field of study. I am a professional ethicist in that I have been paid fees as a consultant to businesses.

I just reccently knocked off a 15-page pamphlet (if printed out on both sides.) - The paper's title is: ETHICS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: Keys to the good life (2015) NEW Here,, safe to open, is a link to it: http://tinyurl.com/pm3ldpk After reading it over, and studying it, I want your impressions of my scribbles - for I respect your views. - Relevant to the question you asked are these points to consider:

Did it define what I, and my colleagues, mean by "Ethics"? Did it adequately define "morality" from the point-of-view of the new models which are offered in this modern frame-of-reference?

Further details, including a section on "What is Morality?" are to be found here:

BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach (2014) Click on this link (and just skip over any parts which seem too technical): http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz See especially pp. 29-32.

I attempted to define some of the key terms, and make important philosophical distinctions.

Let me know if reading the stuff was helpful to a better understanding of what Ethics is all about. I do agree with the writers in your linked-page that there is Individual Ethics concerned with the inner life; and there is Social Ethics concerned with justice, human interactions, providing opportunity, empowering people from the bottom up, etc. Both are discussed in those references I gave you. HAPPY READING!!!

Concerning hat inner life I believe is where it is proper to speak of Morality. {One of our writers here at this Forum, voice of time, suggested that it is better to discard the word 'morality' altogether, since - I suppose he meant - none of today's generation ever speaks of it. So, he would argue, the word has become meaningless. I revive the word, though, and make it a term in my system of Ethics.

As you noticed, when you read my writings, I do not confine the notion of ethics to the meaning diffen gives it, namely, codes of ethics. I don't want to give out rules; I do hold that there are universal principles which serve as guides to make life easier, as well as support smooth human relationships.

Comments? Questions?

[Gary Childress]

If - as indeed is the case according to surveys made by The Institute for Global Ethics - people on Earth when asked what it means to be an ethical person - a morally-good person - respond that it would be someone who is honest, fair (instead of cheating), and responsible [and these are all a matter of degree] then this implies that if an individual is thoroughly honest, fair, and responsible, s/he is a really good person.

If such an individual has these additional qualities: empathic, generous, readiness to be of service, altruistic, sincere, accountable, etc., we would be justified in claiming that individual is morally excellent. And if these traits are true descriptions of the individual over time we may speak of him or her as having "integrity."

If it is reasonable then to say that a person of integrity is a person of good character, then if you have integrity you are a person of good character. If you devote yourself to this ideal, to this norm for your life, and are committed to it then I feel justified in deducing that you are ethical and are a part of the answer rather than a part of the problem.

For the problem in this world now is that there are not enough ethical people. So you are invited to become a part of the solution by making this commitment.


As to applications of moral theory, see the book DIVIDED by David Cay Johnson. It explains how to get into action to make this a better U.S.A. Here is a link to some reviews: http://www.amazon.com/Divided-Perils-Ou ... merReviews


Comments? Questions?

Hi prof,

You say that according to a survey people on Earth believe that being "honest", "fair", and "responsible" makes a person "good". Momentarily putting aside what the definitions of such ideals may be, does that mean that a rich person who is "honest", "fair" and "responsible" is "good" and a poor person who "steals" or "lies", "cheats" and is "irresponsible" is "bad"? This is not to say that all rich people have these qualities anymore than all poor people do not, however, it seems to me that these "good" qualities may possibly be more "affordable" to those who have the most luxury to practice them.

I mean, generally my gut instinct is to believe that those qualities are indeed essential to be a good person but it seems like there should be more to ethics or morality than that. For example, is a slave who lies to his master in order to avoid punishment being "dishonest"? Is a person who has been deprived of various opportunities "bad" if they have become "morally depraved" as a result?

Just some random thoughts.

[Scott Mayers]

"Ethics" is any individual's or group's interested set or collection of morals that prescribe rules of how to behave in some understood setting.

All morals lack sufficiently realistic means to satisfy everyone at all times. They derive from one's internal default assumption by every conscious being to believe that anything favorable to their survival is what is defined as "good". Most of them are secondarily derived from the environment in periods of impressing during early biological development. Biology opens 'windows' of particular brain development that assigns values to neuron responses beginning relatively 'blank'. The environment provides what gets assigned but only gets imprinted (fixed) if one survives the period of development in each wake-to-sleep cycle.

Most morals act only conditionally. One person can be 'morally good' towards ones they love but inversely 'morally evil' towards ones they don't. Also some morals are only able to favor some person while simultaneously harming others. One might believe in a moral belief like: "Everyone must respect ones right to ownership". But in a world where "ownership" means that those having it are the rule-makers, whatever is beneficial for them to command others on their claims is an inversely penalty of those who require abiding the whims of the 'owners'. Thus a belief in ownership rights as a moral is only 'good' for the owner but 'bad' for those who don't own in equal force.

A practical resolution to morality depends on your ability to conserve your power to enforce it only. This could be democratically enforced or if one is powerful enough it could be done by one single person's favor. EVERYONE favors morals that appeal to everyone. Even if you were a dictator, you'd still prefer that your people favor the moral values you hold if only to be able to not worry about being assassinated by the crowds. But it is the power of enforcement which is the ONLY means that any particular individual, groups, or wholes will ever abide. Internally, there is never any way all people can be satisfied unless everyone has perfectly equal power and in which such power does not threaten any single person's ability to achieve what is 'good' for them.

[prof]

If - as indeed is the case according to surveys made by The Institute for Global Ethics - people on Earth when asked what it means to be an ethical person ... it would be someone who is honest, fair (instead of cheating), and responsible [and these are all a matter of degree] ....
If such an individual has these additional qualities: empathic, generous, readiness to be of service, altruistic, sincere, accountable, etc., we would be justified in claiming that individual is morally excellent. And...
For the problem in this world now is that there are not enough ethical people.

Comments? Questions?

Hi prof,

You say that according to a survey people on Earth believe that being "honest", "fair", and "responsible" makes a person "good".good" and a poor person who "steals" or "lies", "cheats" and is "irresponsible" is "bad"?.... it seems to me that these "good" qualities may possibly be more "affordable" to those who have the most luxury to practice them.

I mean, generally my gut instinct is to believe that those qualities are indeed essential to be a good person but it seems like there should be more to ethics or morality than that....deprived of various opportunities "bad" if they have become "morally depraved" as a result?

Just some random thoughts.

Thank you, Gary, for helping me correct my language. This is more-accurately what I meant:
Morality is moral value. Many things that are valuable, that have some value, are not yet what we would call "good."
Honest, Responsible, Accountable, Fair in one's dealings ----- all these values are a matter of degree. In my booklet, EHTICS FOR THE 21st CENTURY, http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ET ... ENTURY.pdf q.v., I discuss some forms of deception which are morally and ethically okay. Thanks for giving me one more, namely, the slave lying to the "master."

Gary, would you claim that " person - whether rich, poor, or in between - "who (quoting you now) "steals" or "lies", "cheats" and is "irresponsible" is" ethical? For that's what you seem to be saying....

Trust your gut in this case.

Yes, there is more to Ethics than that. It is just as deep and expansive (and expandable) a subject as Physics. If you would read the references I offer you would notice that right away ...that there is so much more to Ethics. One branch fills the psychiatrists' manuals, those that list all the deviances and mental conditions. Also included are the defenses people employ to defend their egos. See my blogs in The Ethical Theory Forum here for topics such as Ways to be immoral; Ethics in a Nutshell, Ends and Means, The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts, etc.

I ask you: If someone is, as you say, "morally depraved" would you rate them high in morality? Would you settle for their being (rated) as ethical as anyone else? Or would we make excuses for them - since they lacked opportunities? Many a poor person, you admit, is ethical despite their miserable economic conditions; so why put up with a cheater?? Why shouldn't society hold such a person culpable?

If someone is hungry, why can't he - instead of swiping it - ask the owner of a family-owned small business market for a bite to eat? Some wold give it to him a piece of fruit. If it's a larger (corporately-owned) market, the manager might give him a chore to do in order to earn a basket of food for his family. It has happened! Or he or she could go to a Food Bank and get some cans and/or some nourishment. Or s/he could apply for a Link Card (in the USA.) It used to be called "food stamps." These, while more embarrassing than a Guaranteed Annual Minimum Income for all would be - and that is a reform I would recommend as being what I call "an Ethical technology - getting such a card removes lots of the necessity to go out and steal.

I have met some extremely honest people. My wife is one of them. Most of the rest of us are only partially honest. Some folks among us have criminal minds. They are candidates for The Darwin Award; they tend to kill themselves off by engaging in self-defeating behavior. E.g., many of those murdered by the Mafia were "made men." They were members of the Mafia. I have noticed that there is such a thing as Poetic Justice. There is what Ralph Waldo Emerson described as Compensation.

What do you say?


...To be continued.

[Dalek Prime]

No offense, Prof, but consulting to publically - traded companies is like preaching to the deaf, as they cannot legally act on your advice, unless your advice happens to coincide with their duty to shareholder profit. Note that a privately held company may act ethically, as long as the owner decides to.

Anyhow, my question regarding morals versus ethics was more me striving to understand the differences than anything else.

[Lacewing]

For example, is a slave who lies to his master in order to avoid punishment being "dishonest"?

Good example! I think it's nearly impossible to come up with a set of standards that must apply to everyone all the time and in every situation. Although it seems noble to try!

The measurement of morality I try to use is based on how I would feel to be on the receiving end of whatever it is I'm doing -AND- based on what I (and the "other") could understand and have compassion for if we were "at our best" and not so intoxicated in this soup. So, for example, if I feel it necessary to say something rather sharp to someone, I say it how I would want it said to me if I deserved it. And if I was being so dense that someone had to speak to me sharply, I would ultimately understand (beyond this soup) that it was necessary and for good, but I would not understand if someone was just cruel, mean-spirited, and full of themselves. So that steers me on how to try to be with others: to act as if I were in both positions (giving and receiving). I imagine saying "it" to myself.

Using your example, Gary... if I were a slave, and I needed to lie to my master to protect myself... I would consider that the master, if ultimately "at their best" beyond this soup, would understand the need to lie if they were in my position/role... so such behavior is not immoral (for me), if it's done for understandable reasons that are not mean-spirited. Since I can't know what feels moral or understandable to others -- I can only judge and direct my own behavior as if it were used UPON myself, with the same force and intent. And to see another as "another myself" (even if they go against everything I focus on). In some cases, I may have to walk away from that "other myself".

[Hobbes' Choice]

Honest question. Are ethics the same as morals? Seems ethics are external, and morals, internal.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

There was a good article in PN a while back that took a more empirical stance.
Morals are what society, and authorities tell you, you need to do, whilst ethics is an analysis of moral rules, capable of unpacking the assumptions within the received wisdom of moral rules.
This works well for the main cases of who and what tends to use the terms. Religious leaders for 100s of years talk of moral duty and set out moral rules for people to follow. But "ethics" tends to be used in the mouths of philosophers and thinkers wishing to understand the status and consequences of those morals.
They are both external and internalised, but the distinction lies more in the difference between following (morals), and understanding (ethics); it can also be seen as a division between general and particular; absolute/relative.
So for a given situation the moral route is made clear by the standard set of rules.
But ethics would give you the opportunity to change the rule in light of the particular situation.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Since to be what you are supposed to is to be "good," then it follows that any individual who is what he or she is supposed to be is good under the concept in question. Here the concept we are concerned with is Ethics....


Comments? Questions?

It all depends.

There is not one quality mentioned above that for some circumstance would be a great evil. and there are numerous examples where a breach of those qualities would be necessary in order to do good.

[prof]

...continuing the thread I began in the o.p.:

My argument here is that there is nothing wrong with self-interest - provided it is enlightened !!!

Tell me, please, if this makes sense…..okay? To start with, I’ll ask: What makes something good? Then I’ll explore What makes a person good; but first we have to know what it means to call an item “good.” This is a logical and reasoned procedure.

What makes anything ‘good’? Take a chair, for example. You have a picture in your mind as to what features a chair could have; and if this chair has all those qualities you’d likely call it a good one. So a ‘good chair’ has everything a chair is supposed to have. Of course, everyone might have a different picture with different qualities in mind, but the basic idea is that what makes anything good is for it to be ‘all there’ under the name you put on it.1

Now that we know what the word “good” means, we can ask the question about what makes a good person. Who is a good person? Well, it would be someone who is ‘all there.’ A good person would have all the attributes that a person ought to have. That person, it is fair to say, would have moral value, would avoid selfishness. Let’s describe such a person and see if you would call such an individual morally ‘good.’

That person is one who educates himself, or herself, to do what is truly in his self-interest and who is able to see that “selfishness” is something distinctly different than “self-interest.” Allow me to explain. Wisdom is knowing others and enlightenment is knowing yourself [The point to notice is that ethics is not just ‘a matter of opinion,’ and ‘totally subjective,’ as some would try to tell you. It can be objective and universal.]

As Dr. Stephen Pinker says, “In many areas of life two parties are objectively better off if they both act in a nonselfish way than if each of them acts selfishly. You and I are both better off if we share our surpluses, rescue each other’s children in danger, and refrain from shooting at each other, compared with hoarding our surpluses while they rot, letting the other’s child drown while we file our nails, or feuding like the Hatfields and McCoys.”

“Granted, I might be a bit better off if I acted selfishly at your expense and you played the sucker, but the same is true for you with me, so if each of us tried for these advantages, we’d both end up worse off. Any neutral observer, and you and I if we could talk it over rationally, would have to conclude that the state we should aim for is the one in which we both are unselfish.” (emphasis added.)

It’s in the nature of things that if we educate ourselves enough we come to develop this insight about our true self-interest. We reach this understanding. Does that make sense?

And do you agree with this? {Also a quote from Dr. Pinker}: “If I appeal to you to do anything that affects me – to get off my foot, or tell me the time, or not run me over with your car -- then I can’t do it in a way that privileges my interests over yours (say, retaining my right to run you over with my car) if I want you to take me seriously. I have to state my case in a way that would force me to treat you in kind. I can’t act as if my interests are special just because I’m me and you’re not, any more than I can persuade you that the spot I am standing on is a special place in the universe just because I happen to be standing on it.”

That last concept is what we might name “The Consistency Principle in Ethics.” It means No double standards…one for us and one for the other guy. Can you agree with this? Is it reasonable to minimize hypocrisy?

The person who sees his true self-interest knows these things. For the fact is we are all, in this world, just trying to make a life for ourselves. Referring to those who do know what’s in their interest, Professor Appiah, put it this way: “We want to make a life for ourselves. We recognize that everybody has a life to make and that we are making our lives together. We recognize value in our own humanity and in doing so we see it as the same humanity we find in others. If my humanity matters, so does yours; if yours doesn’t, neither does mine.

We stand or fall together.” Can we come together on this? Do we agree? Isn’t it so that I’m better off if you’re better off; and you are better off if I am better off? Seeing that idea is having “enlightened self-interest.” One who operates on that principle that each of us does better if we all do better is fulfilling his or her true self-interest.

For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out thess links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment

ETHICS FOR THE 21st CENTURY (2015) - - [NEW !!!]
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ET ... ENTURY.pdf

Also you may want to examine this selection if you are truly interested in ethics:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf
Its title is: BASIC ETHICS: A systematic approach.
.

[Dalek Prime]

Honest question. Are ethics the same as morals? Seems ethics are external, and morals, internal.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

There was a good article in PN a while back that took a more empirical stance.
Morals are what society, and authorities tell you, you need to do, whilst ethics is an analysis of moral rules, capable of unpacking the assumptions within the received wisdom of moral rules.
This works well for the main cases of who and what tends to use the terms. Religious leaders for 100s of years talk of moral duty and set out moral rules for people to follow. But "ethics" tends to be used in the mouths of philosophers and thinkers wishing to understand the status and consequences of those morals.
They are both external and internalised, but the distinction lies more in the difference between following (morals), and understanding (ethics); it can also be seen as a division between general and particular; absolute/relative.
So for a given situation the moral route is made clear by the standard set of rules.
But ethics would give you the opportunity to change the rule in light of the particular situation.

Thanks Hobbes. That does clarify matters for me. Much appreciated.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Honest question. Are ethics the same as morals? Seems ethics are external, and morals, internal.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

There was a good article in PN a while back that took a more empirical stance.
Morals are what society, and authorities tell you, you need to do, whilst ethics is an analysis of moral rules, capable of unpacking the assumptions within the received wisdom of moral rules.
This works well for the main cases of who and what tends to use the terms. Religious leaders for 100s of years talk of moral duty and set out moral rules for people to follow. But "ethics" tends to be used in the mouths of philosophers and thinkers wishing to understand the status and consequences of those morals.
They are both external and internalised, but the distinction lies more in the difference between following (morals), and understanding (ethics); it can also be seen as a division between general and particular; absolute/relative.
So for a given situation the moral route is made clear by the standard set of rules.
But ethics would give you the opportunity to change the rule in light of the particular situation.

Thanks Hobbes. That does clarify matters for me. Much appreciated.

Twas a pleasure.

[prof]

Since to be what you are supposed to is to be "good," then it follows that any individual who is what he or she is supposed to be is good under the concept in question. Here the concept we are concerned with is Ethics....


Comments? Questions?

It all depends.

There is not one quality mentioned above that for some circumstance would be a great evil. and there are numerous examples where a breach of those qualities would be necessary in order to do good.

Yes, HC, one may be "generous to a fault." Or one may lie to save a life. My question for you is: Would you prefer, since "it all depends" - since there are rare exceptions to general ethical principals - would you prefer to be surrounded by generous people who are, say, ready to do you a favor if, heaven forfend, you should ever need one? And would you mind hanging out with a bunch of compulsive liars as your social group? Since - after all - there are occasions when lying is morally acceptable !!

Do you get my point?


Would you say of yourself that you are a defender of Situational Ethics?
For if it always "depends", as you claim, it sounds like you would be attracted to that view.... that Situational Ethics school of thought.

The impression I get from your last, most-recent, post is that you restrict "ethics" to being time-bound to the present. Ethicists and Moral Philosophers can change a rule, you say, but society dictates moral principles. I wonder how Henry David Thoreau would respond to that??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_David_Thoreau

[Scott Mayers]

...continuing the thread I began in the o.p.:

My argument here is that there is nothing wrong with self-interest - provided it is enlightened !!!

Tell me, please, if this makes sense…..okay? To start with, I’ll ask: What makes something good? Then I’ll explore What makes a person good; but first we have to know what it means to call an item “good.” This is a logical and reasoned procedure.
...

Your argument lacks justification for a universal idea of 'goodness' as you begin. Simply to assert what already IS as "good" is the religious imperative that defines a "Go(o)d" as a concept as the Judaeo-Christians thought of it in ancient times. You simply predefined a cause that is defaulted to having a value that favors us, what we call, "good".

In reality, all that is "good" is any individual's initial interpretation of existing reality from their perspective as they become conscious. Then much of the more complex values are assigned by the environment during stages of impressioning in animal development.

Selfishness or altruistic behaviors are both conflicting but equivalently essential factors of reality. However, within a given framework, like politics, for instance, if we define a management intent to favor the most people most of the time, the very meaning of government, for instance, suggests that such a goal requires favoring altruistic behaviors over selfish ones. This is because such organs are defined to serve the people, not just one. This is where I believe too much emphasis is placed on creating governments that only optimize specific individuals discriminately. "Private ownership" privileges, for instance, act to do this.

I also agree that incentives are also a function of human behavior and so also see some functional practicality to have balanced 'ownerships' whereby each form has to be interpreted independently for its intent to serve the whole. Unfortunately, the people as a whole are at a loss in this respect as invested 'ownership' always assures a conservative unwillingness to allow anything that risks what they already have in loss to society as a whole. And since power is intrinsic in 'ownership', such will always prevail with more force than the 'good' of the masses.

I think you are trying to convince yourself of self-serving justification for something you also simultaneously may feel guilty for. Finding an argument that appeals to selfish morality always competes against altruistic ones regardless. I don't see any of them as real. But if we are to accept morality as a society, it requires looking for means that less favors the self for the whole as a priority. Conservatism already defaults in nature of all of us to selfish concerns and needs no government to allow. That's why political conservatism favors a dismantling of government as a social construct. But it also arrogantly and hypocritically defers to creating mechanisms, like larger police and military forces under their private controls as a public institution to dictate over the masses. So if you're arguing for a moral justification for public moral institutes that prioritize selfishness, I believe you are always more dangerous to most people by default.