How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

For 55 years I have been thinking about how to construct better ethical theories than those with which we are familiar. By themselves, the conventional standard theories do not seem to me to have done the job. Yes, they make you think, but do they result in more ethical people? A good Ethical theory should change lives, in my humble opinion.

During this time of reflection I also did some research and, as a result have come up with this:
myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20 … Ethics.pdf

I named the effort THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS.

or, if you wish to see a preview first, read the first three pages here: https://tinyurl.com/yd6wafvm then continue on by scrolling down further.

Check it out and let me know what you think. Did I succeed in the project of creating a better ethical theory?

Can you offer an ethical theory that is superior to the one linked to above, and tell us why it is superior? I am curious to study your alternative.
You may wish to print out the document (at the above link) before you read it. Their might be something in this essay that you can use in class. If you are a student, you can teach it to the professor. If you are a mentor, or a coach, or are an instructor, you can teach it to your students.

This is obviously false:

We can’t see the all-pervading power of rational moral theory unless we study history. The sinewy power of praise and shame form habits which become second nature. Conditioning. Words pummel us like red boxing mittens and control behavior until they become motor memory.

How can a question be false??

Are you denying that Virtue Theory ever made people think? The same for Deontological theories, or Consequentialist theories.

I agree that praise and shame have played a part in forming “habits which become second nature.” And I will concede that conditioning has a role to play. {After all, back in 1968 I conversed with Fred [B.F.] Skinner in person, and got his permission to reproduce one of his papers in an anthology I published entitled SCIENCES OF MAN AND SOCIAL ETHICS.}

Here is a quotation that I might have put into the Structure book had I discovered it in time …before I published the book on Amazon Kindle books:

–Toru Sato

.

[size=88]If you have a Kindle, and wish to download the book onto your Kindle, simply go to 8Amazon.com and type into the search box: marvin katz structure ethics
That should take you right to it.[/size]

.

If you are reading the treatise, or have started to read it, or have finished reading it, please let me know.

I’d like to discuss it with you. Do you have any concerns or questions?

What did you think about the Ethical Theory it proposes? Is it good?

There are three - so far - reviews of it at the Kindle website. Those reviewers liked it.
They seem to be more constructive than critical. I am grateful for that :exclamation:

:slight_smile: :slight_smile:

I downloaded and read from the second link–which seems to contain the same 78 page doc as the first link–this morning and found it a stimulating read. Will give The Structure of Ethics a deeper reading later. Am thinking of starting a blog soon, may I quote from the PDF in the blog or in other writings? I’m self-educated and not sure of the intricacies of citation, and the PDF seems possibly a preliminary work, so thought I should ask. I’d like to use a number of the concepts you present in comparison to my own moral-ethical framework, mostly to identify unity in structure between the two but also to possibly point up a caveat or two. Thanks for sharing this.

Greetings, Anomaly654

You write: “I downloaded and read [the eessay - THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS] …this morning and found it a stimulating read.”

Thank you. I am glad you did look it over. and glad to be of service.

:sunglasses: ) You are setting a good example! …And showing keen intelligence and a healthy curiosity.

Yes, you may.

Would prefer that you do that right here. Please point up the caveat, or two, right here and now; I need to learn of them so that I do not go on repeating any mistake I might have made. I have a concern to “make it better.” I feel strongly the discussion or debate should take place here and now - in this thread.

[size=93]Of course, anytime one wishes, with or without my permission, one may post a blog at this Forum, and make any comparisons one cares to make. If in stating one’s own position here in this thread it deviates too far from the theme of this thread, then the poster may be accused of hi-jacking the thread; then would be asked to write his own blog elsewhere.[/size]

Let’s started :exclamation:
What caveats do you have in mind :question:
{Have a constructive attitude geared toward improving Ethical Theory. Be an optimist rather than a pessimist. Find the good and build on it.]

Hi thinkdr,

Because my approach to value and ethics is from a decidedly Christian perspective, I’m not sure this thread is the proper place to post the caveats I mentioned. They tend toward the moral and theological side of things, which I understand have no place in a philosophical discussion of ethics. Actually, I find the view of value I contend for has a lot more in common with your ideas than not anyway. Your writing style is especially lucid and easy to follow. This makes the adjoining of my value system to it especially easy to adapt to.

I have a number of projects going right now, but will try to mount as ‘secular’ a comparison of my value system with your ethics system as I can in a future post. Just not sure how often I can get away to post. I seldom pop in here any more but having found your link this morning, glad I stopped in. In the meantime, it may help you to know where I’m coming from if you get your bearings on the notion of value I argue. In case you’re interested the basics are here…
academia.edu/37914070/The_Mechanism_of_Value

I just read an article of yours, ADDING VALUE IS WHAT IT’S ALL ABOUT. Found again a number of interesting associations. I’ll try a brief explanation.

I contend for the unorthodox idea that value is an inherent “condition of existence” as per Avicenna’s brief sentence noted by Aquinas in the Summa (Part One, Q. 16, A. 1, “Whether Truth Resides Only in the Intellect?”) “The truth of each thing is a property of the essence which is immutably attached to it.” This short sentence identifies in essential form the notion I defend of value as an ontological feature of reality on an informational level. Value (truth and falsity) are fundamental parts of the essence of things.

As an example, Ill comment on your statement (from Adding Value is What It’s All About), “To live smoothly within the various groups (with which we find ourselves involved) we behave civilly and show courtesy and manners. This is one of the ways we add value to social interactions.” The principles involved in the hypothesis I call “value mechanics” would lead directly to this conclusion. A value-fragmented human essence (true and false are in fundamental opposition to one another) as fragmental falsity spread throughout an essentially “true” matrix on a micro level would naturally produce a variety of moral-ethical ‘dissonance postures’ toward the sort of virtue-building that corresponds to the “living smoothly” you describe. In the macro sphere, to exist in a predominantly true state with regard to a particular ideal would move one naturally toward moral behavior. Sufficient falsification, though, would send one away from it and toward those behaviors we call “anti-social”. Humans act in accordance with the degree to which essence is fractionally true- or false-bearing. This condition of value-multiplicity on a micro level would theoretically, if properly truth-bearing, translate into an ability to achieve moral clarity by attaining the status of what I call a “Suitably Oriented Agent”, i.e., suitably or appropriately truth-bearing to act in deference to true ethical principles, many of which I believe you point up in The Structure of Ethics.

If this doesn’t scare you off from future discussion I’d be surprised. :laughing:

Hi there, Anomaly654

Yes, I already was aware of your perspective when I noted your response and then looked up your previous posts. I learned that Religion and Theology were your main interests. And, as you correctly surmised, I wrote a proposal for a secular Ethical theory.

I created such a theory because I wanted to include Atheists and freethinkers among those who could be very ethical, as well as Deists, Witches, Moslems, Jews, Bhuddists, Hindus, Shinto and all sorts of shades and variations of New Thought, Spirituality, etc. These folks also - as well as every other member of our human family - our species - need to know their Ethics, and live it.

You write:

Thank you for those kind words.

Later you say of my efforts that they are:

        ...all of which make nice blurbs for a book-jacket. 

Yes, I tried to make myself clear when I wrote The Structure of Ethics.

There is no guarantee that those who come from a Christian orientation know and practice an ethical way of life. Most do not go to the roots: the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth; instead they look at the “fruits,” the interpretations of Crosstianity made by churchmen, popes, ministers, deacons, and priests. They fill up heads with chaos and confusion: What garments did Jesus wear? What was he hung from by the Romans – was it a tree trunk or a cross? Did he ever hang out with Mary Magdalene? How intimate did they get? Was he drugged? Was he carefully buried before he rose again? Etc. Anything but the policies advocated in The Sermon on the Mount and in The Parables.

Was Thomas Aquinas’ system adequate to make people more-likely to behave ethically.? I think not.
Augustine taught Love. But he also brainwashed people into thinking they were hopeless “Sinners”"!!

In my book and other writings I offer a clear and relatively-simple (in a good sense of “simple,”) system of Ethics. It deals with the what and the how]. It may be immediately taught by educators and parents all over the planet. In that sense it is universal. It is inter-subjective; in that sense it is “objective.” It is subjective and objective - both at once.

Those who are rigid in their mindset, as well as those who think in terms of black-or-white won’t like it, for it is highly-tentative and is relative (in many ways.)

Readers: How about the rest of you?
Do you have any views on the topics?
What did you think of the humble conclusions in the book :question:

Greetings thinkdr,

I created such a theory because I wanted to include Atheists and freethinkers among those who could be very ethical, as well as Deists, Witches, Moslems, Jews, Bhuddists, Hindus, Shinto and all sorts of shades and variations of New Thought, Spirituality, etc. These folks also - as well as every other member of our human family - our species - need to know their Ethics, and live it.

I couldn’t agree more. The doctrines of evangelical Christianity, from whence I came, is based primarily on an emotional reading of the Bible, interpreting morality and ethics from the standpoint of effects rather than cause. Most of my atheist brethren seem not to realize that the more technical explication of morality offered in the value mechanism places all those groups you mention above in the realm of the “born again” doctrine right alongside Christians, a concept decidedly unfavorable to many of my Christian brethren. The few atheists I’ve discussed value mechanics with appear to dismiss the idea without further consideration on the basis of its foundation of pre-existent value. But other than this obviously uncomfortable ground to secular perception, the system bypasses the lion’s share of Christian exclusivity and the following through of its principles throws reasonable doubt on the legitimacy of how “Christian” many proclaimed Christians–or any of us–are.

It also finds direct agreement, for example, with your statement, “Morality likewise is a matter of degree in this system; it depends upon how many ethical principles an individual subscribes to and lives by …the more principles, the higher the degree of morality.” The value mechanics process predicts an essentially ‘technically unfinished’ and mutable truth-bearingness in the essence of every human, leading inexorably to the same conclusion. In fact, the many strands of agreement between my system and yours, despite the fact that we must disagree on the source of our morality and ethics, are predicted by the operational functions of the mechanism of value. This is what I found immediately exciting in reading The Structure of Ethics.

At the same time, the system is also compatible with many of what are considered to be “conservative” Christian doctrines. This places me–a right-leaning moderate–in the often amusing (sometimes infuriating) position of being considered an evil, closed-minded traditionalist in the eyes of my atheist and progressive Christian brethren and an evil, ultra-progressive by many of my conservative Christian brethren.

I applaud your approach to morality and ethics Dr. Katz, I think it lands very comfortably within the boundaries of truth…not just individual, relative truth, but of absolute truth as well. Peace out, my friend.

Hi there, nomaly654, and other lovers-of-Philosopy:
, nomaly writes

Thank you again for those kind words.

My system of Ethics is also compatible with conservative Buddhist teaching as well as with conservative Shinto teachings, and Jewish Ethics …not to mention Mencius in ancient China and Epictetus many years before the Christian Era.

William James, and other Pragmatists, would have liked it, had they seen it. James was excited about a passage he read which declared: The law was made for man; not man for the law. He agreed with me on the emphasis I put on the Individual, as against “Society,” the latter being an abstract concept while individuals are quite real. John Dewey, who I met and discussed with, would like my emphasis on nature, and how we are to adapt to it.

A good student would also recognize elements of Consequentialism, Deontology, and Virtue Theory synthesized within my system.

Did anyone else look it over, and have an opinion on it?

For those who haven’t read the STRUCTURE booklet yet, here is some more information about it:

in the booklet I explain how 4 or 5 well-known maxims, in addition lo lots of other consequences, follow from the axiom: Make things morally better! – as does all the rest of the system.

It’s all derived from that axiom and from the careful definitions of “Ethics” and “Morality.”

Ethics is defined in a formal manner based on one of the dimensions of value that we learn about from Formal Axiology - based on Logic.

Morality” has an analogous structure to “value” itself. This is only natural since morality is moral value. Both morality and value are matters of degree. The objective is to earn a high morality score. Ethics is not merely negative, as your three words suggest; ethics in practice is nearly the same as good human relations. My treatise discusses how to make ethical decisions, how to resolve ethical dilemmas, discusses whether babies can tell right from wrong, how to avoid corrupting oneself, and how to avoid getting in one’s own way.

It also takes up how to attain peace-of-mind, how to lead a trouble-free life, a Quality Life. It offers the properties that comprise “well-being.” It discusses concepts such as heroism and cosmopolitanism. The key terms it employs are well-defined. It presents several moral principles - which are not rules, but are guidelines for living the good life. And also four norms, one of which is: “Do no harm!” And how this can be applied in practical, real-life situations. It also ranks businesses and corporations for honorable mention.

myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20 … Ethics.pdf

If they find it helpful, readers of the document may wish to formulate their own summary, abstract, or review.

I am looking forward to your intelligent comments, questions, or reviews, oncee you have perused the booklet. You may want to print it out firs…

.

.

The link to the document which presents a new paradigm for Ethical Theory, entitled THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS was damaged in the process of updating the book to a new edition. The correct link now is HERE: :slight_smile:

myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH … ETHICS.pdf

Happy reading :exclamation:

:bulb: Let us know your impressions of the new theory proposed in those pages.
Did the writer succeed in his project to provide an adequate system of Ethics? Dose it contain useful knowledge :question: Does it cover more of the field than other theories you have seen :question: Was it worthwhile working on :question:

Your views??

My view of an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics is one that has the ready-theorized ‘Kantian Morality and Ethics’ as the core structure and complemented with various tools [e.g. Hartman’s axiology] and various fields of the neurosciences [theory and practice], problem solving techniques, and other advanced knowledge.

Also, I believe the Christianity’s Moral and Ethical Structure is a good model to start with and to be polished. To polish it we need to get rid of its theistic elements and improve on it with the Kantian system, then incorporate whatever modern knowledge is available at present and providing room to assimilate new knowledge in the future for continuous improvements.

To ensure your ethical structure is sound, you need to consider its feasibility, implementation and the production of positive results to humanity.
As such you will need to provide a timeline for the various milestone and final objective to be achieved.

Your challenge is;
At present Christianity and Islamic moral theory are practiced by almost 5 billion theists and there are others like Hinduism, etc, that make up to 90% of people.
What is your strategy in changing the minds of the above to accept your moral structure?
If you don’t have a weaning strategy to change the above practitioners to yours, then you don’t have a “sound” structure that will work effectively in whatever the stipulated time.

Sorry but… the Jesus did a fairly decent job no? Of changing peoples lives.
I think your opinion aint all that humble, friend.

Hello, Friends

After looking around and seriously considering the state of the world - if I believed that Jesus, or any other prophet, messiah, or other religious leader or human inspiration, had done a “good job” I wouldn’t have bothered to write the books listed in the signature below :exclamation: :exclamation:

A large number of people on this planet (excluding those with brain damage) DO NOT know their Ethics. If they did, we would not be confronted with the problems we have now – the violence, the abuse, the mistreatment of children, the human trafficking, the drug and food addictions, and even much of the ill-health we have now. My book teaches how to have and keep Moral Health. This includes peace-of-mind, good will, readiness to be of service, voting for people who know how to govern with The General Welfare that the U.S. Constitution speaks about in mind. Showing consideration to one’s spouse, giving kids choices to foster their autonomy, being cosmopolitan, are also part of it. Treasuring our habitat, and thus advocating a Green Deal is necessary to truly care about people. Putting people first, things next, and rigid thinking (including greed, and unrelenting focus on financial gain) least: is a correct ordering of priorities. We need to learn about the strong importance of wanting to set a shining example of living ethically.

Your views, readers…??

It’s not about me, nor is it about my opinions.

What it is about is creating an Ethical Theory that synthesizes the best features of other theories. It absorbs into its synthesis the most-reasonable conclusions reached, as well as the best supporting arguments for those conclusions.

Once a reader - someone who enjoys doing Moral Philosophy - has studied the content of THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS [size=88]{-- the first link in the Signature below --}[/size] please be so kind as to tell us your critique of it, or your review.