Conventional Ethics & the new paradigm for Ethics

Does the person who made that statement believe beyond a Cartesian doubt that he didn’t commit the murder?

If so, then it’s a lie.

“Cartesian doubt” - I had to look that one up. At first Descartes sounded a great deal like James. But I think James had one up on him. Off the top of my head, I can’t remember how he put it but James took the whole, “Cogito, ergo sum” thing to a new level.

Did you say what you intended? That if he believed beyond a Cartesian doubt that you did NOT commit the murder then he did not lie?

Are you trying to say that unless he knows beyond all doubt that it is a lie, then it is not a lie? Ignorance is innocence? That would be a rather condemning excuse. That would require you to prove your innocence beyond all doubt else be found guilty by your own admission.

But I didn’t ask about the person saying it. I asked if the statement itself is a true or false statement. The statement is about you. It doesn’t matter who said it.

Is it true or is it false?

If it is false then it is a lie. And anyone saying it, is spreading a falsehood or a lie. if it is not a false statement then it is true. And therefore you admit to the murder.

And you seem to want to promote dishonesty even at your own expense.

So asking any details of your theory is “hijacking”? I wasn’t even disagreeing.

I have noticed that you don’t participate in any other threads on this board except your own. You seem to preach ethics while advertising your book. And when asked about any details, you either say to go read the book or call it “hijacking”. Unless you are donating money to whoever owns this board, if I was a moderator or the administrator, I would have to declare you to be trolling and proselytizing.

I have to say, for someone preaching ethics, you don’t seem very ethical, certainly not very considerate.

No I just threw the Cartesian comment in there because it sounded good.

Lemme try again. If someone says something that is false, but doesn’t know what is true, they can’t be lying. They’re only stating a falsity here. There has to be the element of intent to deceive in order for there to be a lie, see. Lying is not just ‘not telling the truth’, but something more.

Are you a’pickin up what i’m a’puttin down? 'spose I could elaborate more but I’m on a phone right now… a very ergonomically impractical device when it comes to philosophizing.

I agree with your definition of “a lie.”
When someone tells his neighbor that x is a murderer, and he is not 100% sure, he is doing something unethical. He is spreading a rumor that does harm to x. If he is 100% sure that x did not commit that murder, then the truth-value of that is: False. He is telling a lie.
{When one brings up intent - or degree of intent - one is making a moral judgment about the guy. In effect you are admitting that such judgments are not mere emotional outbursts, nor are they like a sneeze, or the emitting of some gas. You have grown in insight. You gave a role to cognition …and are no longer one of those naive non-cognitivists. Congratulations!}

Many times people lie to save face. For example, if someone in a stern voice asks, “Did you make that mess?!” the temptation is to reply, No the dog (cat) did it. This is known as “protecting the ego.” It is a defense mechanism. it’s very common.

I don’t discuss lying in my theory. What I said about the virtue of honesty in an earlier post above is relevant and may suffice.

.

[b]

[/b]
---------Robert Ingersoll

Help others to rise :exclamation:

…e.g. Help them get educated. Help them to know values

Continue to educate yourself.

.

[size=91]{In this post I discuss some meta-ethical concepts, at the risk of getting somewhat technical.}[/size]

A lot of people get into ethics by thinking about what’s good, bad, right, wrong, just, unjust etc.? And why?

To attempt to get down to fundamentals, they eventually inquire: Are statements of ethical judgment without meaning, like groans of dismay and roars of approval?
Are ethical judgments merely personal preferences? Are they arbitrary whims?

Once you’ve answered “No” to the above three queries, you may earnestly ask: Are ethical judgments ever true? Can they make sense?

Once – agreeing with me - you reply “Yes! because moral goodness is an objective property that can be detected by experience and experiment” then you see the need for a meta-ethics, along with a theory that results from it, and you really get down to it, and investigate:
Is goodness a property of things (or actions or people) or is it a relation between a thing (action, person) and a ‘beholder’ who makes a judgment?

Finally you discover the G.E. Moore/R. S. Hartman logical definition of ‘good’ as a second-order property: a property OF properties – namely, a quantifier of qualities

You understand then why it was so hard for the philosophers to see this for so many years. They were looking at it as a first-order property, like ‘yellow,’ ’hairy,’ or ‘flat,’ when all the time it was a second-order matter, like the logical quantifiers, ‘all’ and ‘some.’

I’m confident you will fully comprehend all this if you give it some serious study. With the illustrations the College Course textbook offers you’ll gradually (or suddenly if you’re really bright) come to understand the whole picture. See: wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ … Course.pdf

The questions you ask, and for which the Course supplies some suggested answers, have bothered more than a few philosophers. They are relevant to some of the underlying assumptions of ethics. What sort of thing if anything is “goodness”? What kind of judgments are moral judgments and how do they relate to empirical statements and to truth? The best answers may not fit too neatly with the conventional curriculum!

Once good and bad are understood, and once dimensions of value have been worked out, you are in a good position to analyze and answer questions about What is Justice? What names shall we put upon the differing parts of the justice spectrum – just as we name portions of the electromagnetic spectrum, saying one band is visible light, another is radio waves, etc.

You will hit on the insight that what is “right” is to do and be good; and what is “wrong” is to do and be bad, morally speaking. Hence the primary task is to define what value is – since good and bad are species of value.

That is where to begin: what underlying assumption is necessary to define “value”? What, then, is “value”? And what, in context, does “good” mean when we say of an X that it is good? What is a good X?

An answer to these questions is found in the Ethics: A college course booklet referred to earlier, when a safe-too-open link was given.
So check it out — and learn.

Questions? Comments? Critiques? Reviews?

,

[b]How To Make The World Work

A world that works is a world that works for everyone without depriving anyone of their opportunities to rise.

Will it take - in order to find the areas of consensus upon which we may focus - a super-computer-that-learns?
Will such a device be able to discover policies beneficial to humankind that we will want immediately to implement in order to solve pressing social problems? I predict it will. This is a confirmable prediction. [Those of you with the skill to do it should shart building such a computer right away.]

Are you aware of the process of continuous value-creation? It works when we ask ourselves: “How can I in this moment create some value that will be mutually beneficial? When I am interacting with others, or when I encounter another person, what can I say, or do, that will create value: so that everyone concerned here will win?”

Try it ! You’ll like it :exclamation: You’ll like it! And in return you may find that others want to emulate you in this: they may return the favor. They may send the value in your direction. Even if they don’t, it is worth doing.

Be a value-creator! You will enjoy seeing the results.[/b]

.

Here are some quotes from very wise philosophers:

What are your thoughts on any of these topics? Tell us your views in the area of human relations and/or human development – your views on Ethics.

And please let us know: Did you gain anything of value when you perused, in whole or in part, any of the selections listed below?

According to the new paradigm for Ethics, to be authentic, genuine, and real is to be moral because you are complying with a moral principle: Be true to your own true self.
{See for details the discussion on pp. 30-32 of BASIC ETHICS: A Systematic Approach.
Here is a link to it - myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf
Note the quotation from Shakespeare that is so relevant here.}

To be authentic is to be transparent and honest. One who is transparent “puts all his cards upon the table.” We know where he/she stands. To be authentic is also to be sincere and to have self-respect.

To live by your moral principles over time is to have integrity. One who has integrity has a good character, is authentic, over a period of time, preferably over a lifetime.

To be moral is to keep growing morally, to continue to add new moral principles to those you already live by. It is a dynamic process.

What do you think? Have your say on these matters! Do you like the Unified Theory of Ethics … the new paradigm. Speak up.

If you say that you don’t need to care about others, then you’re also saying that no one needs to care about you. If you want others to treat you morally, then dote yourself to being moral, and strive, with all your might, to reach that goal.

A poll: What is your favorite ethical theory?
Please respond.

I’m a rational egoist. No not that ayn rand crap. rand was a pansy.

I agree with your description of her ‘philosophy.’ Ayn Rand had a sick mind, and was quite hypocritical: She vehemently rejected government in her books and lectures, but then accepted it with open arms when she had health problems. She sought its aid.

So then I take it you mean the Henry Sidgwick variety of “rational egoism.” According to Wiki, in his classic book, The Methods of Ethics, (1872) he explains it as the view that, if rational, “an agent regards quantity of consequent pleasure and pain to himself alone important in choosing between alternatives of action; and seeks always the greatest attainable surplus of pleasure over pain.” In modern language, Wikipedia clarifies this as meaning: “an action is rational if and only if it maximizes one’s self-interest.” Hence the ‘ism’ is oriented about the concept “action.”

As you know, the Unified Theory of Ethics - the new paradigm being proposed - is not about action- except indirectly - but rather is about character; it claims that if one has a good character moral actions will follow as a result.

What did you think about that treatment of character development, on pp. 33-34 of Basic Ethics? The section is entitled “An analysis of the self as it moves through stages.” There you come upon the notion of ‘Enlightened Self-Interest.’ It explains that while we ought pursue our best self-interest, we are aware, we understand that if something helps another individual to have a better character then you inhabit a world with morally-better people …which is, of course, in your true self-interest. [See the fourth selection in the References below.]
To put it succinctly, what really helps you, helps me!

You see, I too care about self-interest. And I too want to be rational. I very much want to have humility also. That means I don’t want to be an egotist; in a sense, I want “to kill the ego.” I believe we can develop morally as we go through life, just as an adolescent can gain maturity, can acquire a sense of responsibility and a concern for the growth and the welfare of others, can learn to be kind and considerate. The new paradigm for Ethics rejects selfishness, as it is the very opposite of being ethical.

Folks, I’d like to hear your ideas about all this.

.
Yes, attend to your self-interest! Yet be aware that if you can think of ways to accomplish X (and you will do what you can to contribute to making it happen) then you will live in a world where Z will result in making your life easier. And this will surely enhance your self-interest.

What is X?

For example, X may be reducing poverty to its barest minimum. Or X may be creating a new and better way to distil ocean water; or a way to pull carbon out of the atmosphere.

And what is Z?

Z stands for: the probabilities are higher that someone – pursuing their hobby – will invent or discover something that, sooner or later, makes your life more comfortable – or gives you more pleasure.

Understanding that X may lead to Z - this consciousness - is known as Enlightened Self-interest.

It is displayed when you ask yourself, as you encounter other human individuals, “How can I create value, so that everyone wins?”
“What can I say or do so that I create the maximum value for all concerned?”

Isn’t it the case that Enlightened Self-interest is superior – has more value for us – than does mere self-centered concern?

Hence, let’s wise up and be unselfish. Let’s consider others. Let’s be considerate. And be kind whenever possible.

…And it’s always possible.

If you want others to treat you morally, then devote yourself to being moral, and strive, with all your might, to reach that goal. Tell yourself: “I will strive to be a decent human being; I intend to be! I shall be ethical,sand will be even more moral than I am now!”

A basic assumption of the Unified Theory offered here for your consideration is that human life has value.

How much value?

That is ‘in the eye of the beholder.’ Though if the beholder is an ethical person he/she will emanate good-will and a willingness to be helpful. An ethical individual will value the other person Intrinsically; she will see us through that lens. She will Intrinsically-value (I-value) us.

And she will want to make things better, morally better. As to what this entails see the chapter “What is Ethics?” in the booklet THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS. It is the first selection listed in the References below.

Also, to learn more about the Unified Theory of Ethics, read the contents of this brief thread: viewtopic.php?t=187763&p=2532723

Some people, a minority, are born with some brain damage. And a minority of that minority become predators (destructive organisms.) They prey upon others. These predators are the con-artists, the corrupt, the manipulators, the exploiters, the slave-holders, the rapists, the torturers, the spouse abusers, the dictators and authoritarians.

Those individuals who know their Ethics will be less-likely to fall prey to the predators. If we are attuned to goodness we recognize the predators for what they are. We sense something is out of place, is incongruous. We will not take part in a scheme devised by a predator, or by someone who disparages others, destroys, despoils, shows disrespect, has cold indifference to the value of human life, etc. We will spot it at an early stage.

What say you?

Some are made by family and society. It’s not all “brain damage”.

Sounds naive.

Being ethical does not suddenly give you some special detection powers. Ethical people may be more likely to become victims of unethical people because they let down their guard. Or ethical behavior places them in vulnerable situations.

Psychopaths are often good at deception.

Those people who give off clear signals need the most help. They are “troubled” and they resort to violence and criminality to solve their problems. If an ethical person attempts to help, then he/she is taking a risk. The danger comes directly from person being helped and also from his friends and associates. Think of people involved with drugs or gangs.

Well… mine would revolve around not doing anything towards others where the repercussions could end in death… from revenge, and other such acts of justice-seeking.

A simple, but necessary-to-mention one imo.

Hi, there Phyllo

It is good to hear from an ethically-sensitive person, one such as you who has a conscience that is wide awake. I’m looking forward to further discussion on topics of mutual interest; and to your offering further corrections and updates, suggestions for improvement, with a view to forging out a superior theory of ethics, extending its structure, so that eventually it covers a lot more ethical data than any previous theory was able to do.

I agree with everything you wrote quoted above. Thank you for a relevant and meaningful contribution to the ongoing discussion :exclamation:

If anyone is curious about my motivation in arguing that someone with an ethical character would be alert to the schemes of a ‘human predator,’ I was influenced by the essay on Virtue Ethics (VT) in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy when it explained the virtue “honesty.” It claimed that an individual who is thoroughly honest would, in effect, “smell” dishonesty when in its presence, and would be revolted by it.
Since honesty is one of the qualities possessed by an individual of good character [which is, as you know, the focus of my theory of Ethics] I generalized from that – and, in the process, probably over-generalized.

Mea culpa.

Thanks again for speaking up.

phyllo,

Perhaps not but it might ring some kind of a “bell” or raise some kind of a red flag so to speak.

Why would they necessarily have to let down their guard? Are ethical people more prone to stupidity?
Being ethical is not necessarily the same as being “too trusting”. An ethical person may very well realize how human we can be, how imperfect, and their self-radar may be strong.

I would think that it would be more the unethical person who could place him/her -self in a vulnerable position since they might be more tempted or prone to do something unethical or immoral to “get over” or to gain an advantage. He/she may be more the pushover.

Ethical people live by some kind of a moral code like “to do no harm” and would be less prone or tempted to take the easy way out - to break the law - to seek an undue advantage. It is that “code” which protects with ethical armor so to speak.

Different perceptions. :evilfun:

Being ethical doesn’t improve your judgement of people and situations. The two are just not related in that way. Judgement is a skill which requires learning and practice.

“Good judgment comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgement.”

Greetings, Arcturus Descending

What you call “a code,” I call “a moral principle.”
To all readers: Please tell us which word or phrase you see as more apt for the purpose of devising a theory which works. [The main point to make is that these are not rules, but merely suggestions.]

Arcturus - You have a sound argument, a refutation of the view that ethical people are more-vulnerable or that they ‘let their guard down.’
{These people may intuitively know the Existential Hierarchy of Values that R. S. Harman discovered; and which is explained clearly in the References below.}

Since they know their values (if they are educated in the essentials of the Unified Theory of Ethics) they are quite aware that disparaging or degrading a human individual is a disvalue [worth next to nothing], they will be wary of anyone who does that. {the exception being that it is okay to satire anyone who is high-profile in politics. Some ‘deserve’ ridicule.}

For example, when D. J. T. debased and disparaged his opponents in the 2015 Republican primary debate, instead of telling what positive constructive policies he stood for, the good people detected an immoral person right there on the spot! Later when he declaimed “I alone can save you !!” they recognized a potential dictator, an authoritarian.
And when DJ Lump - Benedict Donald - boasted about the size of his crowd at his inauguration they recognized a pathological liar

Phyllo, though, is right in saying that a clever con-artist can be very good at deceiving, can lie to you with a straight face, and sound very-convincing. The moment that he or she tries to separate someone from their money, or anything else of value, one is to be more-skeptical than usual.

Ethical people don’t have to be gullible.

So thanks again, Arcturus, for a fine rejoinder.