What is Ethics? - a fresh, new approach

.

.Do you believe the ethical theory proposed in this thread is better than previous ethical theories?

And if not, why not?

:bulb: As you know, it has an answer for the issue of gun safety. It indicates we go in the direction of nonviolence. Thus it has a response to the issue of waging war. It indicates we conscientiously object to participating in such. It defines “war” as “organized mass murder in the name of a fine and noble cause,” causes such as “for Democracy,” or “to end terrorism,” etc. It holds that we arrange to live in a world without war.

It also has a response to the issue of abortion. It says that nowadays, and into the future, due to advanced methods of birth control, and due also to the realism of virtual reality devoted to porn, abortion is becoming increasingly unnecessary - and therefore no longer an issue.
It has implications, as well, for other issues of Applied Ethics.

It argues that automation tends to create more jobs; and it enourages society both to retrain people at no cost to the job-seeker (getting a small stipend while being retrained) for higher-tech work that society currently requires, as well as to recruit people for jobs that are urgently needed, such as teaching and nursing.

Also the book on THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS quotes Peter Singer on a resolution to some other moral dilemmas that he well-argued for in his book, HOW ARE WE TO LIVE? The book also has as chapter on Business Ethics, and lists Best places to work, and why they are.

So what is your opinion? Is this theory better than alternative ethical theories :question:

.

Your making it SO complicated that it’s not even an ethics theory.

Let’s simplify cosmic ethics:

No being wants their consent violated without it being their own terms.

There are not many ways to accomplish this.

-Philosophic zombie universes
-Marionette universes

  • hallucinating reality from eternal forms
  • hyper dimensional mirror realities

Everything else is a consent violating formulation.

Thus… ultimately anti ethical

Now, there are ways to be relatively ethical absent these solutions, but not and never absolute

According to Webster’s II Dictionary, a definition of “ethics” is this: “a system of moral values that guides conduct.” A system of ethics deals with questions such as “What is the opposite of being ethical?” “How shall I live?” “What is a good life?” “Do I have any obligations?”

Readers, as you look at page 2, The Table of Contents of the booklet, THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS, does that seem complicated to you?
[See the first link below.]

To cover the requirements of the above definition, wouldn’t some detailed explications and explorations be a necessity - in order to fulfill the description and exposition of the concept. The booklet proceeds by deconstructing and then reconstructing a couple of key terms, namely, “ethics,” and “morality.”

Some disruption occurs …to use a term from business.

A new paradigm is revolutionary and usually always meets with strong criticism from those who suffer from “future shock.” The introduction of a new system is highly controversial. I’m confident you can supply examples.

What I was trying to say, and apologies for being rude. If you can’t explain it to a 5 year old in the span of perhaps even a paragraph or less, it’s not going to be useful for humans.

Greetings, Ecmandu

Apology accepted! :sunglasses:

Yes, I can go along with what you were trying to say … though it does reveal your current view of humans.

It’s a good suggestion! :slight_smile:
Let’s ask everyone here: How would you explain Ethics to a 5-year-old in the span of a paragraph or two?

Any ideas :question:

.

Children as young as four can begin to see things from other people’s perspectives. I am not sure I would explain ethics to a five year old - or to anyone for that matter - but I would work in questions related to how other people might feel about X - ‘How do you think Timmy felt when you pushed him off the pier?’ and then statements about my own perspective and then also the five year olds. Role modeling perspective insights and shifts, and also demonstrating my skills (hopefully) at describing the five year olds and how I take that into account in relation to him or her. Ethical rules and guidelines, in a sense, presume we cannot work with empathy and perception, that we have to have rules. I think it actually honors the integrity of the child to enhance the skill set, so to speak, and also to share with and confront them with the inner experiences you have. Rather than coming up with 10 commandments, say, or even much subtler versions.

What you write above sounds less like an ethical theory, but rather predictions that technology will make us get along in various ways or eliminate troubling conflicting goods (as old iambiguous might phrase it). I realize you do have a whole system via links, but I just wanted to point out that those portions of this post are not really ethical positions or systems. I think some of these predictions are not correct, but that’s a different sort of issue from your final question.

I haven’t seen the phrases before with Enhancement, but I think this is more or less a liberal view of ethics. What do you think is unique about his or your views?

It’s certainly true that ethics involves the ability to value something other than oneself, to relate to it in its own terms plus your own terms in that relating. Also that ethics involves “selfishness”. You don’t do things because you’re selfish, you’re selfish because you… do things.

But those are just aspects. Ethics is largely about right and wrong which means true and false. What kind of ice cream you like isn’t an ethical question. If your issue can be boiled down to an “opinion” then it’s not an ethical issue. Ethics comes from reason, which is the ability to and desire to engage this thing called reality.

Given that there are no new ideas under the Sun, I suggest that you read the book - the first one mentioned in the links below in the signature, and then judge for yourself whether there is anything “unique.”

I would venture that the way I define the concept “morality” is rather unique, but I may be wrong.

If you feel like summarizing what you consider unique, I can read that and respond to that. I like reading physical books, where I turn the pages. What’s unique about how you define the concept morality?

The chapter on morality is 17 pages in length for good reason.

To summarize it would not do it justice.

You have permission though to republiish it as a hardcover book; then you will be able to turn the pages. :bulb: { KT: Why not print it out, staple the pages, or bind them in some fashion, and then flip pages.}

The explanation entails being true to yourself, appreciating the various moral principles - of which I give a specific list - committing oneself to living up to those principles, and doing so, more and more, through the years (and with more of the principles): growing and developing morally, thus becoming more morally-healthy.

Hence kindness alone is not enough.

readers: Your views, and your reviews of the essay titled THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS, are welcomed! [Click on first link below to learn about this new paradigm, and to judge its merit.]

For those who never got around to reading THE BREAKTHROUGH, here is a passage from that paper:

“Morality" to the Ethicist is a technical term which connotes authenticity as well as the opposite of hypocrisy and phoniness’. It denotes that you practice what you preach: your observable self corresponds to your ideal self-image. As you gain in ethical insight your behavior (conduct) corresponds to your continuously-improving self-identity.

As a result of understanding the moral sense, we may conclude that everyone is to be regarded as if they are of limitless value! Try to imagine what implications follow from that understanding. One such deduction is to do no harm.

Furthermore, if one holds a moral perspective, one will strive to have good manners, and to be courteous. One will avoid using words that hurt. Instead we will use words that heal, words that serve to boost people up. When we enter a room people will feel like a plant that has just been watered.

Your response? Comments? Questions?

Karpal T: Did I reply to your question adequately?

Of course. And the lengths of the books of the various philosophers and others which are referenced and discussed in other threads were likely written in their lengths for good reasons. But then it is a discussion forum. So people summarize, work with specific ideas and then perhaps hope that from these discussions people will be inspired to go read books they haven’t…or, perhaps interesting discussions can happen via the presentations of ideas taken from longer works.

Of course, everyone knows that. But it could be a start towards instilling interest. I get it. You wrote something, you want people to read the whole thing. but if you make a claim about something then people will want to explore that. If you answer becomes, go read my book, it seems to me it’s not really what makes a discussion forum, online, work.

Because I can, for free, go to the library and take out, say, Locke Or Rawls or Spinoza and read works that have lasted through long years of critical scrutiny and are still deemed valuable. Though even these people’s ideas are summarized here as portions or starts of conversations. It’s a discussion forum.

Still haven’t seen the unique part. Not at this abstract level and then not also in the more specific examples which seemed to fit in the liberal tradition.

yeah i can’t get down like that, thinkdoc. i left the herd behind decades ago, and with that, i left their morality as well. if you ever asked me why i do what i do… i’d tell ya i do it all for the nookie.

In the post of Apr 19, 2019 above, I gave a summary [from the paper entitled THE BREAKTHROUGH] of what “morality” means in the new paradigm for Ethical Theory. [size=88]{Yet, Karpel, you write as if responding to an earlier post instead of to the most recent one on this topic. It’s hard for me to understand why. I’m not even going to venture a guess.}[/size] …Hope the following helps:

Many ethical theories confuse “morality” with “morals.” The latter refers to local cultural practices resulting from social interaction, tribalism, and tradition. Those topics are a concern of Cultural Anthropology, a sub-branch of Sociology. [Yes, its findings have relevance to Ethics, especially when they deal with negotiations as to what is harmful and what isn’t. For “Do no harm” is an early principle deduced from the Axiom of Ethics, and from the definition of “Ethics.”]
To me, morality is not a key term in Social Ethics; it is rather a personal trait. “Morality” is a key term of Individual Ethics. That is why this approach is unique. Let me explain further:

“Morality” is increasing correspondence of one’s actual behavior with an improving self-image. An ‘improving self-image’ is one which is ever more-keenly aware of principle, and is over time adding more moral principles to one’s repertoire.

Morality is a matter of degree: the self-concept has three parts. They are one’s name, one’s self-image, and one’s conduct. The more that the latter two correspond (match up), the higher degree is one’s morality. That is to say, the more moral one is. The more your conduct matches your highest self-ideals (the finest set of attributes for what constitutes an ethical character that you can imagine), the more you possess morality – as I understand it.

…As I wrote earlier, this summary does not do the topic justice. For a better comprehension of what the Hartman/Katz paradigm for Ethics is getting at, see (relatively-brief) Chapter Three in the first selection in the signature below: click on the link to THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS. It won’t hurt for philosophers (and philosophy students) to do a little reading. :bulb: {Some kind-and-ethical person can do a service by transcribing the booklet for the visually-impaired. Send the record, the audio-book to The Library for the Blind in New York, NY.]

Comments? Questions?

I just learned today about The World Kindness Movement. Yes, I was aware of World Kindness Day,and how two local school system in the Chicago suburbss had celebrated this on the Elementary and Primary-school level, but I didn’t know there was a movement behind it.

Here is a link to their site; theworldkindnessmovement.org/#

This is an example of what I have designated in my writing ass “an Ethical technology.” It is a social invention that helps to bring an ethical world closer, helps to make such a world (of ethical individuals) more of a reality. So I am very encouraged by this. Another such development would be the advent of 5G. Another would be advances in Voice-Recognition technology, so that AI could grasp human meanings and intentions more-accurately.

The World Kindness Movement originated 22 years ago in Japan. The WKM managed to get United Nations sponsorship. Currently it invites cities and towns to sign up to get their city designated as a Kindness City. It has over a dozen nations as members and endorsers. It has all kinds of creative activities; a "Kindness Card’; etc. It got the Australian Prime Minister to praise it. It is actually ‘making a dent.’

While my research in ethics leads me to believe that kindness alone is not enough: one also needs Morality - as I have defined it in recent posts above - yet I believe that a World Kindness Movement is a ‘leap forward’ in evolving from tribalism to cosmopolitan inclusivity, from divisiveness to unity-within-diversity.

How do you feel about this development? :question:

I come back to a thread, find the first post responding to me and respond to that. That way I keep a line of back and forth on that issue. If you look at page 1 I also posted an answer to one of your questions. I don’t think you got back to that. Which is fine, it’s a lot of posts in here. I could go on and read the whole thread and see if you added more responses to my post, but for me it works to take it step by step. Regardless of what you later said, in other posts, you posted what I responded to. One can always revise a post, rather than adding others which should then be taken as the better answers.

Greetings, KT

You write:

I summarized above, per your request, what I wrote about Morality in the STRUCTURE treatise {which is the first essay listed below in the signature. {People may wish to click on that link to get a fuller picture on the subject.}

So tell us your response.

To Everyone: What are your thoughts now on the topic of this thread? Due to the logical arguments presented in the essay, are you inclined to adopt this new unique approach to Ethics? Can you find it to be acceptable?

Inquiring minds want to know…

.

In the first post of this thread a reference was made to the existential, logical, Hierarchy of Value (the HOV).

For those who would like to be reminded of the argument for the validity, the coherence, the correspondence with daily life, and the inspired creativity of the logical Hierarchy of Value formula see this link:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194809

The formula is said to be “existential” because it affirms life. As to why it is logical, see the first few pages of BASIC ETHICS, a (safe to open) link to which is provided in the Signature below: click on the 4th reference down in the list.

Comments, questions, upgrades, etc. are most welcome…