What do we know about Ethics?
Posted: Tue May 22, 2018 6:34 pm
What do we know about Ethics?
I have some ideas on the topic. I’d like to hear yours.
I have some ideas on the topic. I’d like to hear yours.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
Okay. What did Kant know for sure about Ethics?Necromancer wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 8:56 pm I only relate to Ethics for real as Kantian ethics (gold standard) beyond the "hysterical" philosophical discussion on ethics. Applied ethics, though, is OK.
--- ---Stephen PinkerYou can foster the well-being of others by enhancing life, health, knowledge, freedom, abundance, safety, beauty and peace. History shows that when we empathize with others and apply our ingenuity to improving the human condition, we can make progress in doing so, and you can help to continue that progress.
Well, for a starter, being lawful under democratic laws and regulations is surely one way to relate to Kant. After that, you may want to enter the applied ethics discussions or political discussion for that matter as a Kantian ethicist... Agree?prof wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2018 10:02 pmOkay. What did Kant know for sure about Ethics?Necromancer wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 8:56 pm I only relate to Ethics for real as Kantian ethics (gold standard) beyond the "hysterical" philosophical discussion on ethics. Applied ethics, though, is OK.
Before you make any ethical decision, Necromancer, in your interactions with other people, do you always ask yourself the Categorical Imperative question? Doesn't the answer depend upon how you frame that question?? "What if everyone did what I'm about to do? [And how does one measure what would result??}
You call yourself "prof" and your speciality seems to be ethics and you don't understand what Kant, charitably, writes even for a short text as "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals" at 80 pages.prof wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 7:42 pm I asked what, to you, is Kant's ethics?
Your answer is rather limited and not quite clear.
Could you fill in some of the gaps for us? ....Surrely there is more to the Metaphysics of Morals than that! What does it mean to "regard people as ends" when every (so-called) end can be construed as a means to a further end?
How definitely determine an "end."?
Are these passive aggressive tendencies you display ethical Prof?prof wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 12:11 am Thus my latest breakthrough is that experiments may be divised employing the notion of time-units of attention. In this way, is it possible that Ethics can be ushered into science - in the modern {rather than the old European} sense of the word? And, in suggesting this, am I being "pseudo-scientific" as claimed by the trolls? I trust not.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 12:48 pm
Greetings, DP
It is still pseudoscience if you are attempting to use that Hartman Value Profile to make a science out of ethics.
That's a joke! That Profile to which you refer, DP, is very widely being used to learn how people think about - and express in their lives - values, including ethical values such as empathy and responsibility. It also measures with precision excesses and deficits of characteristics traditionally regarded as "virtues" and "vices." If you had more experience with it, you would be definitely impressed with the (confirmed) results it obtains!
You are still presumably predicating everything on a quantitative claim that the number of properties of an object increases beyond those of other objects when people make a qualitative decision about it.
No, I am not doing that. I regret I once, failing to communicate it well, gave you that impression. See pp. 7-9 of the COLLEGE COURSE booklet for a cleaer explanation: http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... Course.pdf
Yes, there is a quantitative claim; namely, that your intension of a thing (or of an individual) may be larger in attributes [descriptors] than mine is on the same item or subject.
If your intension [set of predicates in your meaning] is indeed larger, then when you perceive a bijective [one-to-one] isomorphism - you notice a match - between your conception and the empirical features in something, you will value that item (or individual) more highly than I will. This is true by definition and by observation.
That is unworkable for a science. Attentions per second won't change anything about that.
---If you say so.
In the meantime, creative individuals with a bent for research will 'do their thing' even though you told them it couldn't be done. Some people have a gift for experimental design, and some are good at character assassination; calling others dishonest. The committing of the Fallacy of Ad Hominem doesn't bother them at all. ...I hope this latter description is not referring to you!!!
Also, the thing you propose to measure and codify is not ethics anyway.
What, pray tell, is your exact definition of the concept "ethics"? Many, if not most, philosophical disputes turn on miscommunication due to the use of vague and ambigous words.
You are inserting a placeholder and misnaming it.
Can you be more specific?
I wouldn't want to misname any placeholder.
There might be some value to your method if used for purposes it can address.
Thank you, young man. I appreciate your appreciation. I really do.
But that all disappears if you pretend it is for the measurement of a phenomenon that it cannot actually inspect.
....Didn't know I was pretending. It is good of you to inform me. Thanks. So please tell us: what is this "phenomenon," and be so kind as to demonstrate for us - with evidence - why "it cannot actually inspect" that "phenomenon."
[Incidentally, it is a fact that the HVP test has massive results; testimonials as to its accuracy, and is used by psychotherapists as a valuable tool in their work. Of that I am confident. If you care to learn the truth of this, by interviewing each tester, report on it, and publish your findings, it can, with a little effort be done. It would be a helpful service on your part. The institute set up in Hartman's honor would help you get started. First, of course, you have to care.]
Beware you do not place yourself in that group with those who asserted emphatically that "man would never be able to fly in a heavy craft!"
Confirmed results huh? Are these scientifically confirmed results, suitable for a science... or are they the "confirmed" anecdotal evidence of a random number of therapists again? I seem to remember it was 100 last time, but then it became a thousand when the first claim wasn't deemed impressive.prof wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 5:38 pmFlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 12:48 pm
Greetings, DP
It is still pseudoscience if you are attempting to use that Hartman Value Profile to make a science out of ethics.
That's a joke! That Profile to which you refer, DP, is very widely being used to learn how people think about - and express in their lives - values, including ethical values such as empathy and responsibility. It also measures with precision excesses and deficits of characteristics traditionally regarded as "virtues" and "vices." If you had more experience with it, you would be definitely impressed with the (confirmed) results it obtains!
Damn. For a second there I thought you had actually abandoned the worst part of your theory. But unfortunately you are simply forgetting where you wrote it. Anyway, I will refer back to your own ebook BASIC ETHICS for this part because it is clearer than any of your subsequent writings.prof wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 5:38 pmFlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 12:48 pm You are still presumably predicating everything on a quantitative claim that the number of properties of an object increases beyond those of other objects when people make a qualitative decision about it. [/quot]
No, I am not doing that. I regret I once, failing to communicate it well, gave you that impression. See pp. 7-9 of the COLLEGE COURSE booklet for a cleaer explanation: http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... Course.pdf
Yes, there is a quantitative claim; namely, that your intension of a thing (or of an individual) may be larger in attributes [descriptors] than mine is on the same item or subject.
If your intension [set of predicates in your meaning] is indeed larger, then when you perceive a bijective [one-to-one] isomorphism - you notice a match - between your conception and the empirical features in something, you will value that item (or individual) more highly than I will. This is true by definition and by observation.
Now, if you are abandoning the entire I > E > S nonsense then that is a decent start and I won't dissuade you from it.And a value that has a nondenumerable (an uncountable) amount of the
property-names (attributes) which are needed to describe something (or
someone) having uncountably-many properties {such as your mother, your
wife, your dear friend, your priceless treasure, a museum-quality artifact,
etc.) …that value dimension we shall dub I-value, wherein I stands for
Intrinsic. Intrinsic values are seen as gestalts, for if asked to list all the
features of one’s girlfriend or mother, a person wouldn’t know where to
begin to enumerate them – there are just so many. Enumeration is
inappropriate and is not necessary.
I think we all agree that the formula 90 > 20 > 4 is true with regard
to arithmetic. It is the same with the three basic dimensions of
value - with regard to valuation: A higher infinity is greater (in size)
than a lesser infinity;1
which in turn is greater than a finite amount.
An infinity of what? In this case, an infinity of meaning. And, as we
are about to explain, value depends upon meaning.
You are supposed to be a professor of philosophy, don't force me to explain the basics of fallacious ad hominem arguments to you.prof wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 5:38 pm That is unworkable for a science. Attentions per second won't change anything about that.
---If you say so.
In the meantime, creative individuals with a bent for research will 'do their thing' even though you told them it couldn't be done. Some people have a gift for experimental design, and some are good at character assassination; calling others dishonest. The committing of the Fallacy of Ad Hominem doesn't bother them at all. ...I hope this latter description is not referring to you!!!
But Ethics is supposed to be a bit of a vague and ambiguous word. It's a whole mysterious part of human life that isn't easily codified. That's what you are ignoring with your pseudoscientific claims. If I could really nail it down for you without leaving a sea of grey areas then we wouldn't be having this conversation because a science of ethics would have replaced philosophising on the subject centuries ago. therefore my point depends on not being able to provide an adequate definition of ethics, and the fact that you can't either - so help me, if you point me to another of your bloody books and pretend that you have adequately defined this thing, I will refuse to read it. If you claim you can define ethics without leaving out something very important, then you can write a concise definition here instead. I am completely fed up with that system of tactical evasion that you rely upon.prof wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 5:38 pmWhat, pray tell, is your exact definition of the concept "ethics"? Many, if not most, philosophical disputes turn on miscommunication due to the use of vague and ambigous words.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 12:48 pm Also, the thing you propose to measure and codify is not ethics anyway.
prof wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 5:38 pmCan you be more specific?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 12:48 pm You are inserting a placeholder and misnaming it.
prof wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 5:38 pm
[Incidentally, it is a fact that the HVP test has massive results; testimonials as to its accuracy, and is used by psychotherapists as a valuable tool in their work. Of that I am confident. If you care to learn the truth of this, by interviewing each tester, report on it, and publish your findings, it can, with a little effort be done. It would be a helpful service on your part. The institute set up in Hartman's honor would help you get started. First, of course, you have to care.]
Sure. And you should avoid being the guy hunting for planet Vulcan. This grandiose delusional streak isn't helping you any more than the passive aggression does.
You gave me an argument that Universal Basic Income was a bad idea and that instead some dreadful sounding system of subsidies for patriarchally approved art
Now that was being constructive - which is rare and beautiful when it occurs !!I will direct you to other examples of people doing something similar to what you propose. One example would be economists who are very interested in the idea of how trusting societies are. In short, lack of trust is very expensive, it makes us as a society invest in a lot of extra courts and lawyers, which raises transaction costs. So they have ways of assessing which societies trust each other a lot (Scandinavia of course) and which ones trust each other relatively less (your country and mine), versus ones where nobody trusts anyone at all (Russia). But of course they cannot actually measure trust itself, that is absurd, so they collect indexes of other things and from those they extrapolate some representative of trust up to a certain point.
... those international happiness rankings don'g really claim to measure happiness, and the Transparency International survey ranks perceptions of corruption, not corruption itself.
And yet here we are, with you describing and then rejecting UBI...prof wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 8:38 pm As I was about to submit this post I heard from the Thought Police who accused me of being "evasive," "unable to recognize limits," and accused me of putting forth an argument to the effect of :You gave me an argument that Universal Basic Income was a bad idea and that instead some dreadful sounding system of subsidies for patriarchally approved art
Here we note views which of course is something I do not believe and would not advocate. At the Applied Ethics site I initiated an entire thread presenting the advantages and benefits of UBI - Universal Basic Income.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=18345prof wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 8:38 pm It also points to this Applied Ethics concept: Now that robots programmed with Generalized Artificial Intelligence are - or will soon be - taking over, and doing all the jobs, a better solution than A Minimum Basic Guaranteed Annual Income grant for everyone will be [- if we could ever elect a Congress in the U.S.A. willing to even consider passing it -] setting up agencies that in an organized manner will ask all applicants what their talents and interests are, test their capacities and native gifts and aptitudes, and then give them work to do and pay them a (minimum) living wage {much like the federal Works Progress Administration under F.D.R. did} so that they 'earn' their income by their artistic expression, such as painting, stand-up comedy, or story-telling, etc., or by some other line of work that has some value to society.
Now I hadn't actually read that passage, but I totally wasn't surprised by the appearance of happiness indexes, which I already have pointed out don't measure happiness. also the list of most ethical companies does not measure ethics of any companies at all. The list of best companies to work for replaces actual best companies to work for with indicators such as whether staff are happy, and what amount is spent on training.Also we have seen the advent of several versions of a Happiness
Index, and a 'Best Company to work for' Index. Note the fine work
of the Ethisphere Institute which compiles a list of “the world’s
most ethical companies.” Now, in four countries, there are many
practitioners, coaches, and therapists who employ the Hartman
Value Profile (the H.V.P.) in their work. The existence of such
measuring instruments is an encouraging development. In one
study of 5000 cases by Schoof and Demerest it was revealed that
the majority of those tested believe that they should be living up to
their highest potentials and ideals more than they now do. This is
a source of tension for them. Life Coaches and therapists, with
the aid of this research finding are thus aware of an area in which
the counselee needs work; it gives them a clear direction on
which to focus
Why do you assume I was talking about you?
And are you implying that what you write is not 'self-serving'? Or is this a case of "the pot calling the kettle black"?FlashDangerpants wrote: Your definition of Ethics is self serving and incomplete, also as expected.