Definitional morality?!
Thank you for your question.
Bertrand Russel showed us how to do an analysis. Would anyone deny that he was a philosopher?
Analytic Philosophy proceeds by defining terms. This is also essential to the method of science.
Does anyone else have any questions or comments? Reviews? Interpretations? Improvements to suggest?
Okay, let’s focus in on a context in which particular behaviors come into conflict over that which is deemed to be either morally right or morally wrong. And then discuss how an analysis from Bertrand Russell…an analysis derived from definitions…coupled with all that science might inform us of, can aid and abet us in either reconciling these conflicting goods or even in resolving them.
In your thread in re “Man amidst Mankind” your dilemma seems to be how to make an intelligent distinction between the personal self [the ‘me’ that you know] and the roles that you play [such as U.S. citizen, male, white guy, member of the human race], etc.
The genius philosopher, Robert S. Hartman, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Hartman gave us a way to do that when he invented/discovered the three basic dimensions of value on the values spectrum. They are S, E, and I - which are abbreviations for Systemic Value, Extrinsic Value, and Intrinsic Value.
Your dilemma is resolved by comprehending that your Self can be analyzed all three ways: Systemically you are a statistic “one organism among billions,” “a member of the human species,” “a white male, with all the privileges that bestows,” etc.
Extrinsically you are, say for example, a “father,” “a barber,” “a writer,” “a Martin Heidegger fan,” “someone with a good memory, and a keen sense of smell,” “at times I’m quite a gambler, although I’m usually risk-aversive,” etc., etc.
Intrinsically you are the one who tells himself, who affirms “I am that I am.” “I’m my self-identity, my moral principles and high standards: I won’t shop-lift even if tempted, I won’t cheat,” etc." “I feel good-will toward everyone,” “I radiate love,” “I am glad I have some responsibility.” “I’m ready to help out if I can,” Etc., etc.
You may say to yourself: “All of the above comprise my self-concept.”
Bottom line: we all have multiple selves.
…And we’ll never leave this world alive! True security is to realize: there is no security. We are all vulnerable, fallible, and - unless we have the gifts of a Mark Twain, an Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, or a Plato, who will remember us 100 years from now? Only our legacy lives on.
Comments?
Actually, it is more about how the two become intertwined for any particular “I” out in any particular world such that the myriad variables that come to encompass “I”, first genetically, and then memetically [historically, culturally and experientially], in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change, would impact one’s reaction to conflicting goods in that given set of circumstances.
And here I suggest to others that they themselves choose that context.
Instead…
Okay, but what do your points here actually have to do my post above:
“…let’s focus in on a context in which particular behaviors come into conflict over that which is deemed to be either morally right or morally wrong. And then discuss how an analysis from Bertrand Russell…an analysis derived from definitions…coupled with all that science might inform us of, can aid and abet us in either reconciling these conflicting goods or even in resolving them.”
Or, better still, let’s focus in on a context pertaining to your “analysis” derived from your definitions coupled with all that science might have to offer in regard to either reconciling or resolving conflicting behaviors derived from conflicting value judgments pertaining to a context of your choice.
From my frame of mind, you still want the discussion to revolve largely around “serious philosophers” exchanging “general description intellectual contraptions” about ethics.
WTF
Yes, at this site I want to do philosophy; and if it can be done seriously, so much the better. Once here I gave an illustrative dilemma to resolve, and no interest was shown in that thread. I presented a real-life, dramatic example, but it didn’t help:No one cared about it. It was about a Woman’s Health counselor who had an STD from an ex-boyfriend; and she had a counselee who came in with an STD she caught from the same guy. I titled the thread “How Resolve This Dilemma?” Only about ten people opened it up to read it. No one had any comment on it.
I requested, iambiguous, that you initiate a thread or a post on ethics which does things your way, without the “intellectual contraptions” that I have, which either irritate you, or ‘turn you off.’ That way we will both be happy.
Good luck with your thread!
See the reviews of a precious book by Schoof & Clark entitled Living a Richer Life.
amazon.com/product-reviews/ … ewpoints=1
Then decide if you want to read it.
It contains some valuable guides to Ethical decision-making.
With regard to Ethical Decision-making and Ethical problem-solving, these five approaches – articulated by The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics - suggest that once we have ascertained the facts, we should ask ourselves five questions when trying to resolve a moral issue:
· What benefits and what harms will each course of action produce, and which alternative will lead to the best overall consequences?
· What moral rights do the affected parties have, and which course of action best respects those rights?
· Which course of action does not show favoritism or discrimination?
· Which course of action develops moral virtues?
· Which course of action advances certain general conditions that are to everyone’s advantage?
This ethical theory proposed here recommends that we focus on ensuring that the social policies, social systems, institutions, and environments on which we depend are beneficial to all. Examples of such include affordable health care, effective public safety, peace among nations, a just legal system, and an unpolluted environment.
For it makes sense for us to view ourselves as members of the same community, reflecting on broad questions concerning the kind of society we want to become and how we are to achieve that society. While respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals to pursue their own goals, it is preferable that we recognize and further those goals we – all over the planet - share in common.
This is not to imply that there is anything wrong with identification with a group such as personal choices that favor family, neighborhoods, religious groups, professional groups, political factions, etc.
We have the right to pursue happiness in our own unique way; yet still be aware of what helps the entire world community win. The idea that we can make our group prosperous at the expense of making another group poor is an ethical fallacy. It violates the Social Ethics principle that we stand or fall together.
Be clear that the above discussion is NOT claiming that identification with a group is unethical, or that personal choices that to favor family, or neighborhood, is wrong. It is not saying that we have only two identities - that of ‘self’, and that of ‘world citizen’. Let there be no confusion about that.
Your views are welcomed !
I came upon this brief article that came out last year. It is relevant to the subject of this thread. These six paragraphs are well-written; I believe you will find its contents to be informative. Also, the page offers links to related topics that concern enlightened and ethically-integrated business management and operation.
The title of the article is How to Conduct an Ethical Analysis.
Here is a link to it:
bizfluent.com/how-7795257-condu … lysis.html
Enjoy 
Contrary to what Ecmandu claims, it seems that some people give a damn about ethics…
Thinkdr,
That article was absurd. Now here’s the deal. You decided to come after me by name.
Ethics requires wisdom. Something (wisdom) you are in very short supply of.
Nobody gives a fuck about your articles. Why? Immorality works better than morality here. If anything, the Donald Trumps of the world look at your articles as what not to do!
They literally read them and say, “if I do the exact opposite of thinkdr, I’ll be successful”
You are so fucking naive dude.
Here’s the deal…
I’m towing the line (not only for this species) but for existence as a whole.
Do you have any, ANY clue how your messages read to street smart people?
No you don’t.
I’m going to tell you again (emphatically) - if existence is ever win lose, it’s lose for everyone.
Did you fuck a woman thinkdr?
Sorry, hell for you! That’s a win lose scenario.
I hate your mind. You need to grow the fuck up.
Thanks a lot for wanting to help me.
In many ways, though, you sound like Trump.
It’s not about me – but if it were I would tell you my background and you would then have to conclude that I’m a bit more street-smart than anyone you know – yourself included. I’m a straight-cat, yet one who has ‘seen a thing or two.’
Define for us what you mean by “successful.”
Is Paul Manafort winning (the game of life)? […last I heard, he has leg shackles and a case of Covid19.]
It will be the same with many of Trump’s close buddies.
Does anyone here have anything to contribute to the project of helping to make humans more ethical? Do you know of someone who is doing so? If you do, report about it: tell us the good news!
You really don’t get it dude.
How can I say this diplomatically to you.
Nobody gives a fuck about morals anymore.
In life here, you have to be anti social to succeed.
It works 100% of the time.
Are you a revolutionary for ethics?
No, you’re not.
Greetings, Ecmandu:
You ask: “Are you a revolutionary for ethics?”
How would such an individual be described? What does he, or she, do?
You still haven’t told us what you mean by “succeed.” Are you a Materialist?
Soon Biden will appoint a new “Ethics czar.” He will also strive to get House Resolution One resubmitted, and passed by the Senate. It will make certain forms of corruption illegal. Hopefully, it will be enforced.
A revolutionary for ethics is someone who can entice all of existence with a better plan.
Words don’t mean much to people anymore when it comes to ethics. In order for them to mean something, they have to be EXTREMELY powerful.
Your words are still attached to solving the unsolvable: a zero sum reality. You might as well be pissing in the wind.
Most people don’t even know a spirit world exists on this plane of existence. And if they do, often they’ll resort to the insoluble god concept to get them through.
I’m not god. I’m just a guy who has a better plan than this one. That makes me an ethics revolutionary.
Am I going to threaten you with hell if you don’t obey me? Probably not. Depends on the transgression.
I always state that revenge and forgiveness are distractions. Distractions from what? Sending all beings to their personal heaven forever.
.
I do not believe that most people hold, as their reality, the notion that "If I win - in some way - then someone else has to lose." Nor do they hold the view that “Life is all about winning.” Sure, we all would like to have some money …but we don’t have to suffer from greed: for greed is a personality disorder, much like hoarding. To always feel “I’ll never have enough” is a sickness.
The ultimate goal of a systematic Ethics theory, as I have often taught, is to show the path to a Quality Life for one and all. In a sense, everyone will be ‘a winner.’
For further details as to what comprises “a Quality Life” and for a definition of “well being,” see the References below …which spell it out. When more people are educated to the extent that they see clearly the central concepts of ethics and morality - as elucidated in the Unified Theory of Ethics - I see no reason why they will not build a life and a society in which we can all thrive and flourish
Again, and I’m trying to be diplomatic with you (aside from liking you personally): it’s garbage.
You hit the problem right on the head of the nail:
Most people DON’T think that if they win, someone else loses. (Or they don’t care)
That’s the slumber of existence. Those are the walking dead.
The people who are awake understand that for everything they win here, someone loses.
You can’t handle that truth yet.
To be moral in a shitty world like this is to
A.) don’t do something breaking ones heart - by having it instead of them
B.) don’t break someone’s heart by not having it for yourself
I’ve told you many times now that I think you’re extremely naive. I hope you grow out of that phase.
Let’s get a few things clear:
-
I am naive. I confess that’s true. I’m also fallible and often mistaken. This current post though gives reliable and accurate information.
-
Fear can be a strong motivator; both for those who do evil, and for those who do good. In the case of the latter, people may behave in what seems to be an ethical manner because they fear violating a law and thus being subject to the penalty that the statute may prescribe.
It would be better if they had the correct motive, namely, they behaved in accordance with what the the Unified Theory of Ethics [the new paradigm] explains: It teaches that we are to Intrinsically-value other individuals in order to be ethical. This is an academic way of saying: act out of love – or at least respect (for a fellow member of of your species.
It would be better to recognize that we are all primates, and to help the evolution of human-kind along. We are evolving toward a world where eventually we all will conduct ourselves ethically, be motivated to avoid harming one another - because we want to be considerate of one another. And we want to reach the ultimate goal. That goal is a Quality Life for one and all.
- Let’s agree that those who do not care about being ethical, those who do not or cannot care, are the sleepwalkers. They are the ‘walking dead.’ Their conscience is asleep. It needs to be awakened. Those who do care, who are caring, will work toward that end …to awaken, enlighten, educate. They will even mobilize and caampaign for it.
If you - someone who cares,one who is dedicated to honesty - encounter someone who is deceptive, one who deceives or lies, the way to handle it is to say to that person: “Let’s respect each other - okay?” “Out of respect we will not tell each other falsehoods, nor will we attempt to deceive - agreed? Is it a deal? Okay?”
“Yes. Sure!”
“That’s good. So from now on we’ll be completely honest with each other.”
You can put it into your own words, words suitable for the other to dig it. The point is to I-value the other person.
- Love drives out fear. And that’s a fact .
Try it. You’ll see!!
Comments? Discussion?
[To whom it may concern: Write your own thread; do not high-jack other people’s threads! … E–u, You know who I mean.]