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 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 
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. 
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.
So why did the “good” people vote for him?
And why are they likely to reelect him?
His opponent got more than 3 million more votes, but majority does not rule when we continue to have an Electoral College. Thus many good people did not vote for him.
People wanted a “strong” man, and Trump, being an experienced Reality TV actor knew how to portray that image.
Many good people thought that a businessman would do a good job, or at least a better one than politicians they had met. They didn’t bother to check whether he was all that competent at business, though. They further did not stop to figure that government is set up to make life better for its citizens while a business is often designed solely to make a profit for its owners.
Many listened to Fox News telling them constantly a legend as to how corrupt Hillary was and is.The charges may have beenbased on weak arguments, but that didn’t matter to people who don’t think for themselves. one of the arguments, for example, is that she accepted a high speaking fee from Goldman Sachs. True, she did. That does not make one ‘corrupt.’ {That reinforces readiness to give another talk.} The Clinton Foundation can provide solid evidence that it has done lots of good works in many areas of the world. …thanks in part to donations received. So out of rejection of one awful candidate, they voted for the (extremely-unqualified) opponent.
Many who voted for him were hurting at the time: they believed the view that undocumented immigrants were “taking their jobs.” Actually automation in fact was relentlessly making many jobs obsolete - and still is. They believed that everyone should “show their papers;” though if the Native Americans had that policy, none of us would likely be here.
In fact, most American citizens would rather not have the backbreaking job of picking cauliflower and tomatoes all day long. The employers of “illegals” are, in fact, not held responsible for hiring the non-citizens. They break laws and get away with it.
These are among the reasons people voted for a predator. Mostly they can’t be bothered or tell themselves they don’t have time to check the record of a candidate, and to check his knowledge of history, or to evaluate whether he or she has good values, or would even be able to today pass the standard test which is given in order to qualify for citizenship.
You are correct, Phyllo, in what you wrote about experience, and about good judgment. Many of us are naive in many different areas. And, often, “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” Those who know Ethics will be humble about the vast ignorance a mere human has relative to the universe of knowledge yet to be learned. Not a single one of us ought to claim moral superiority either.
w
Greetings, MagsJ
Based upon your theory, what is your position on shoplifting, embezzlement, corruption, and identity security? Assume that none of these lead to death.
What would your theory of ethics have to say with regard to these issues?
Pleas inform us.
Thanks.
Everyone: MagsJ told us his favorite theory for ethics. Tell us yours.
If you are inconsiderate, unkind, never tip anyone who does a service for you, never want to be accountable, or are phony in some way, then you are not ethical.
Therefore if you want to be ethical you ought to be considerate of others, be kind, ready to be of service, have a generous spirit, be responsible, accountable, transparent regarding your values, agendas and motives. You ought to be sincere and authentic.
To sum it up, you are obliged to be good.
Carleas informs us that it is quite possible that “morality is an evolved trait in social animals which has helped our ancestors to survive” and which will very-probably help us to survive as well.
Yet many of us want more than merely to survive: we want to flourish! Being ethical individuals, thus setting a shining example for others, and living in an ethical environment, is prerequisite to flourishing.
In the new paradigm for ethical theory, the Unified Theory of Ethics, morality is understood as something that can evolve: we can become even more moral than we are at present. One may achieve this by adding new moral principles to those we already live by.
Assume that an individual is 60% moral. If one aims for 100%% and falls short s/he will at least be, say, 70%. That’s progress.
One way to be more moral is to widen the scope of those you consider as your in-group; be more inclusive. You will extend the radius of your moral compass. You will become more Cosmopolitan.
You also will be careful not to have a double standard, one for yourself and another standard for others.
Your views? What do you think about any of these matters?
For example, were the concepts “ought” and “obligation” used legitimately in this context? Is the Unified Theory an enhancement for conventional academic theory? Is it an improvement? Are you among those who would like to flourish and have a keen sense of well-being?
.
Oliver S. Curry, an Anthropologist with ties to Oxford University, informs us, as a result of his research in the field that morality is meant to promote cooperation. “People everywhere,” he writes, “face a similar set of social problems, and use a similar set of moral [principles] to solve them.” In a paper published in Current Anthropology, he relates that “Everyone everywhere shares a common moral code. All agree that cooperating, promoting the common good, is the right thing to do.” In a rather diverse group of cultures around the planet he found that morality includes imperatives such as: Be brave, show humility, be fair, exhibit deference to others, solve conflicts or rivalries by having contests.
Maybe the Intuitionists were onto something…
Is this perhaps what Dr. Shelly Kagan, of the Yale Dept. of Philosophy, calls “ordinary morality”? campuspress.yale.edu/shellykagan/about/
Also, at their website, see the universal ethical values which researchers at The Institute for Global Ethics found
globalethics.org/What-We-Do.aspx
You do of course have a point here. An ethical person would also have to have good judgment which you mention above along with a sharp knowledge of what human beings are capable of/human behavior ~~ as a result of experience.
The whole of the individual has to be taken into consideration. I do not know though. Somehow I seem to intuit that the more ethical a person is, the less chance they have of being taken in by some scrupulous person or persons.
By ethical, I do not necessarily mean someone who goes to church every Sunday and tries to live a good life.
I have no idea why I say this since we are human and flowed but “ethical” must mean something much more to me somehow than one who simply tries to live a good, moral life. 
With regard to your first sentence above, I strongly agree. Although it helps to have lived long enough to gain experience, I believe this skepticism can be learned in a good Ethics class, if taught well.
Yes, “ethical” does mean more. According to the reasoning in the documents and treatises referenced in the signature below, being ethical means having the capacity to highly-value other individuals and to have self-respect also. One is ethical when one sees others as of uncountable value, not to be defiled nor disparaged.
Then, as a result, one is, if at all possible, respectful. And is considerate, and cooperative. And kind, and willing to help and be of service.
The opposite of being ethical is to be either selfish, or corrupt, and/or very hypocritical. Furthermore, an ethical person avoids being morally-judgmental.
What was your impression, what did you think when you read some of those papers cited below
I’d like to hear your response.
All questions and comments are welcome !
Well… shoplifting, embezzlement, corruption, and identity theft are unethical, and are more likely to end you up in prison, but rarely death… unless the victim takes the law into their own hands, but that would be unethical, as unlawful acts should be dealt with by the law, no?
A society that would decree death-by-stoning, say, would be taking the law into their own hands, but that’s a barbaric solution to those felonies.
Greetings, MagsJ
You tell us that your ethical theory revolves around NOT doing something - if the repercussions end in death.
Yet you say that embezzlement is unethical even though it does not end in death.
What do you think about the new theory of ethics proposed in the References below, a theory which is based on viewing others as so valuable as to be worth our giving them some respect and/or doing something kind for them, etc.; and having enough self-respect as to be a responsible individual ready to be accountable for how your carried out your responsibility. The “etc.” and the details entailed, are outlined in The Structure of Ethics booklet.
What is your opinion of that theory? It is offered as a possibly-better alternative. Do you think it makes the grade?