Hardcore Ethics

I’m with you here, however when we look out at society competition and greed and cooperation can mix be separate, overlap.

Efficient usually means getting things done with low expense, quickly, low resource use. Effective usually means how much you can count on it working. A bulldozer is extremely effective at getting through a doorway, but not so efficient.

A greedy company can generally point at their products and services. Some greedy companies even make very good products and employ a bunch of people.

Sure.

OK but then this seems implicit when greed is being defined as opposed to cooperation. Though I did reread the quote and it seems like he is viewing competition positively. Which means he is not seeing them as mutually exclusive. Good.

But we need to get under the generalities. One can be greedy and also cooperate. In fact a corporation pretty much has to. With its suppliers, customers, employees, the state and so on. We might argue that there is coercion or imbalance in what they are calling cooperation.

How do we distinguish between cooperation that is fair and not. And even with greedy people, some of them actually can be quite fair. This may fit their business model. They may think it works. Or works in many areas of their corporation.

IN a sense I am saying that it seems to me there is a category error, or several, in what you quoted.

Even greed and cooperation are not mutually exclusive. In fact to be effectively greedy you have to cooperate with people, some of them perhaps greedy.

We have a compulsion (Greed)

and we have a pattern of interaction (Cooperation).

They aren’t opposed. They are in different categories.

And then there will be a strong subjective element in what different people consider the drive of a CEO or shareholder.

Greetings, Karpal

I distinguish cooperation from mere teamwork. In Ethics, I use “cooperation” as meaning a “spirit of intentional pitching in to accomplish a noble cause (or ideal end in view.)” The ones cooperating are to be doing it mindfully, and voluntarily, and with strong motivation to reach that ethical goal.
While making money is a fine goal, those doing it are to be conscious that they want to avoid getting greedy! They want to keep on being generous, living a relatively-simple life, environmentally-friendly, and in harmony (at least with) the other members of their species.

What did you think of that story about the Chinese Restaurant owners that you found in that section 'on competition, located near the end of the Structure of Ethics document?

ON THE OBJECTIVITY OF MORALITY

According to the Unified Theory of Ethics - which was inspired originally by Robert S. Hartman, and carried further by M. C. Katz - the more an individual complies with the highest ideals he or she can imagine, the more moral he or she is.

These highest ideals are moral principles. And the more moral principles to which an individual adheres, lives by, the more moral that individual is.
The compliance can be measured by others. So too can the number of principles to which one is committed be measured. What can be scientifically measured by Moral Psychologists is objective.
Moral Psychology is the experimental branch of Ethics.

[[size=59]Those psychologists may not want to admit they are ethicists, but that’s how I regard them. They probably want to consider themselves psychologists since currently more prestige is associated with that designation.][/size]

The first two paragraphs above tell us how “morality” is defined in the Unified Theory of Ethics, and perhaps that is how best morality is to be understood.
Since the above logical argument is sound, the case is made: “Morality” can be objective.
For further details, see M. Katz - Basic Ethics: a systematic approach.
A safe-to-open link to it is found in the listing below in the signature.

Critics may object: “But objectivity means independence from opinion. Highest ideals or moral principles are matters of opinion, and so subjective.”
Explain to the critic that they are subjective and objective at the same time: it is an objective fact that they are deduced from the system of ethics being offered in THE STRUCTURE of ETHICS booklet. They naturally follow from the framework that was constructed to account for the ethical data, and for the situations in which an ethical decision had to be made.
“Morality” is a term in a system, a well-defined term; it is an integral part of the structure - just as your brai is a part of the organism that is you.

For details, see THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS (2019) which is the first listing in the references given below.
A list of some of the moral principles is found on pp. 27-28 of the essay. These are suggested guidelines for living an Ethical life; they are not rules. Other principles, not there listed, may also be derived from the proposed structure.

[In a technical system that is posited opinion is kept to a minimum. Furrthermore, I agree with those who understand that “objectivity” is inter-subjective consensus. Let’s now discuss the concept “objectivity” in general.

A ’truth’ is true because everybody holds the same opinion about it. That’s the foundation of scientific “truth.” When scientists agree on come conclusion of research it acquires the status of “fact.”
Anything believed to be a fact is believed by a human being. Facts are objective. Human beings are subjective. If "objectivity“ has any meaning, it is a consensus held by subjective creatures.

It is possible thus to be objective and subjective at the same time. Let’s not engage extensively in black-or-white thinking, (or as it is called in Formal Axiology circles: dys-systemic thinking.) This kind of confused thinking dogmatically insists that it has to be one or the other - but not both.

Polanyi did a fine job in one of his books arguing that science is permeated with opinion and subjectivity. It is seen in the choice by a scientist as to what field he or she will do their research: it is a personal value decision.
And Habermas has also written extensively on the intersubjectivity of factual beliefs, the consensus idea.

If you tell me that due to an avalanche a rock fell right in front of you, beyond your control, it is good manners for me to accept your report, and you expect me to accept it - despite your biases and personal perspectives. We may believe it, take it to be objective fact. We come to this situation with the prior belief that “rocks fall.”

What say you? Comments? Discussion?

I would say E. as, as we can be taught the Ethical at home and/or in Educational Establishments, ethics is instinctual, but it may not be for some whom lead unethical lives under the radar and outside of the law.

Thank you, MagsJ, for taking part in the survey.

And thank you for your intelligent response.

Prof. Abraham Maslow, as a result of his research, claimed that human beings do not have instincts; he did grant though that they have some ‘instinctoid’ traits.

My inductive observation of humans is that they all have in common the fact that they suffer. They all, at one time or another in their lives, suffer.

Since the Unified Theory of Ethics can help people cope with this, it is worthwhile studying Ethics. Learning Ethics has many benefits some of which are mentioned in the references to which links are offered below.

One more question: Do you think morality is (in part) objective? And if not, why not?

I would define instinct as something automatic that is not learned or acquired but is natural or hard wired
There are instincts one has from birth that one was born with because it was necessary to just know them

The instinct to eat when one is hungry / the instinct to drink when one is thirsty
The instinct to be warm when one is cold / the instinct to sleep when one is tired

These instincts cannot be ignored because the inevitable consequence of that would be death

Food and water and heat and sleep can only be denied for so long and this is probably while they are instincts
Because having to learn them would take time and from an evolutionary perspective that could be rather fatal

And as it is evolution then it is not exclusive to humans but is probably universal across the entire animal kingdom

Greetings, surreptitious75

You have some good ideas. Thanks for a stimulating contribution to the discussion. Yes, I’ll agree that we are hard-wired to look out for our own benefit. Maslow placed the Survival Needs at the very base of his Hierarchy of Human Needs model.

Bees and ants have instincts; they can’t help doing what they’re doing. Wouldn’t you say, though, that the fact that an individual human can willfully ‘fast unto death’ is evidence that eating and/or drinking are not instincts. They are strong needs, but that behavior is not instinctual, as is the hive building activity of the worker bee.

Here are some conclusions that one could infer from a study of the Unified Theory of Ethics:

STAY IN ETHICAL BALANCE

To stay in balance:

Give equal attention to empathy and compassion;
to getting moral things done in a moral way;
to thinking deeply about relevant matters.

The relevant matters are those of top priority. The Theory explains how to know which those are.

Based upon your analysis, all things considered, do you believe that this Unified UnifiedTheory is a better theory of ethics than others with which you are acquainted?

Comments? Questions?

Fasting to the actual point of death is incredibly hard to do because the body will be rejecting the mind with as much resistance as it possibly can all of the way
So although it is possible like any other type of suicide is it is not something that can be undertaken easily at all and so to succeed requires phenomenal free will

No one claimed it was easy to do. The issue we were discussing is whether human beings have instincts.
The closest we may come to that is the infant’s and baby’s fear of falling from a high platform to a lower point. And even many adults are acrophobic - or perhaps very cautious - when at the edge of a high roof.

All this may be a digression, though, from the topic of this thread.

So let me ask you, gentle Readers:

1. are there facts of ethics?

2. is there (or are there) statistically-measurable ethical data?

3. is there any system of ethics that has a structure to it?

4. can Ethics be an objective study, one that may be taught in classrooms?

5. does the Hartman/Katz Ethical system help one achieve moral clarity?

.

Are you aware of this site?
cnn.com/2019/10/30/world/cn … index.html

It acquaints us with people who put Ethics into action!

See the broadcast, where a top winner is chosen by popular vote of the American people, and where the candidates are sponsored by celebrities who donate to the various good causes: Sunday, 12/8/2019 at 8p.m.Eastern Standard Time - today, on CNN - to learn of examples of practical applications of Ethics.

If you caught the show, what did you think of it? Would you consider these folks to be heroes? Does what they do impress you as “heroic”? Do you understand how every candidate is a winner? …as are the members of society, the rest of us, who live in a better world, a little-more of an ethical world because of their efforts.

Furthermore, at the site to which the following link takes you, one can see who were the candidates and 'winners in previous years. …very enlightening. A good sampling of practical applied ethics – hardcore ethics.
cnn.com/specials/cnn-heroes

Henry Sidgwick, the writer of the classic Methods of Ethics, believed that to be a hero one would have to give his or her life, or suffer great damage.

To parcipitants at this Forum:
Do you believe that in order to be known as a “hero” one would have to have given his/her life or suffer great damage?

To learn more about Sidgwick, see plato.stanford.edu/entries/sidgwick/

To read a discussion of this matter, exploring its implications, see pp. 44-46 of THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS: Achieving Moral Clarity – which is the first reference listed in the Signature below.

Let’s hear your views!

A NEW THEORY OF ETHICS IS PROPOSED

The new theory of ethics proposed in the References below, is 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 referenced below, where a link to a pdf document that one may download, free of charge, is given.

This ethical theory proposed, for your consideration, is known as the Unified Theory of Ethics because it aims to be a synthesis of all the best concepts from other existing theories, and because it offers a framework in which to fit in new discoveries, new facts, new data relevant to the field of study and research.

This new data may come from such disciplines as Brain Neurology, Cultural Anthropology, Game Theory, Cybernetics, or Behavioral Economics.
Do you believe that human life is valuable?
Do you think that morality could stem from an individual having a good character?

Are you familiar with this new (yet very old) theory, and if so, how would you review it?

We invite your response. questions, and critiques.

ANOTHER BENEFIT OBTAINED BY STUDYING ETHICS

Studying Ethics would encourage you to attend to your self-interest provided, though, that it is an Enlightened Self-interest! Be aware that if :

1. either you can think of ways to accomplish any or all of the following three goals
2. and/or if you will do what you can to contribute to making one of these happen –

then you will, as a result, live in a world where your life is an easier and more comfortable one. You will live in what I call “a more-ethical world.’ And this will surely enhance your self-interest. Here are three examples:

1. Reducing poverty to its barest minimum; or
2. creating a new and better way to distil ocean water; or
3. inventing a new, and efficient, way to pull carbon out of the atmosphere.

The probabilities are high that someone – pursuing their hobby – will invent or discover something that, sooner or later, makes your life more comfortable – or gives you more pleasure.

It is good when one understands that accomplishing a noble goal – [such as one of the above examples], or somehow encouraging such developments – will help one live in a more-ethical world. This consciousness – this awareness – is known as Enlightened Self-interest.

Such enlightenment 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 to – has more value for us – than does mere self-centered concern? [The latter is what is usually meant by the use of the phrase “self-interest.”]

Hence, let’s wise up and be unselfish. Let’s consider others. Let’s be considerate. Let’s not disparage other people. And be kind whenever possible.

…And it’s always possible.

Your views?

Readers and Forum Participants:

I have some questions that I invite you to answer.

What is more important than getting our priorities straight?

What is more important than contributing toward the aim of providing a quality life for people?

If you could do it for even one individual beyond yourself, wouldn’t that be a contribution?

To learn more about clear priorities, vital priorities, see the top selection listed, entitled THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS. And let’s hear your views on the topics raised therein.

.
Many people these days (and it‘s not just confined to the USA) will say, “We live in a state of chaos and confusion.”
The new paradigm for Ethics, this new ethical way of life, will relieve these people of this burden of chaos and confusion. They will see clearly; they will know which values are the best values. Recall that formula I > E > S which you learned when you studied the essay BASIC ETHICS: A systematic approach.

You acquired further background if you read all three pages of this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195234

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.

What will it take to arrive at such a world – a world which Dr. M. C. Katz speaks of as ‘an ethical world’?

Will we need to focus on agreement and consensus as to what policies people want, to improve their lives? Do we need to encourage and foster more democracy and transparency?
Do we need to exercise that precious right that we have: the right to vote.
Do we need to arrange that we have more referendum questions to vote on than we now have?
Do we need to insist that our elected representatives pass legislation to outlaw corruption …make it a crime (punishable by prison time) for an individual to violate the public trust for a personal benefit of money or gifts?

Some people, a minority, are born with some brain damage. Among those are some individuals who will make find contributions to the welfare and advancement of the human species; they will help our evolution; they will make progress.

A minority of those who have a brain defect - a tinier minority - become predators (destructive organisms.) They prey upon others. These predators are the con-artists, the manipulators, the exploiters, the slave-holders, the rapists, the spouse abusers, the dictators and authoritarians. Some are crude and are ready to disparage others. Or, they may be smooth con-artists. Or both, at different moments.
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 'puts others down, ’ destroys, despoils, shows disrespect, has cold indifference to the value of human life, etc. We will spot it at an early stage.
Do you agree?

An ethical world is one where the unselfish folks vastly outnumber the selfish ones, and where the unselfish, the un-corrupt, the less hypocritical have the power and the authority - and they prefer democratic and highly-moral ways of proceeding. They show it by their actions, not just their words.

Your views, in response, are most welcome!!

Equally distributed risk and reward.

Thanks for defining “fair” for us.

What I wrote in a previous post is more important than ever. Here is the quote:

Now that the U.S.A. is at war with Iran - and its start (the death of an American-born contractor) resembles the absurdity of the way World War One started - the words in that quote about Predators is more-relevant than when they were first posted.

Those who start, or escalate, wars - when their country has not been invaded, and when every possible diplomatic means to prevent it has not been tried - are Predators.

[size=50]In this case the Predator causes many needless deaths, and painful injuries, and suffering in a quest to become ‘President for Life.’ Someone who ants to be a dictator sees an opportunity. He ignores the Constitution which says that only Congress has the authority to enter us into a war. …thus his breaking one more law - on top of dozens of other illegal moves.
Though would you expect otherwise from a disciple of Roy Kohn?[/size]

The axiological analysis of the concept “justice” revealed that Retribution and Revenge are the lowest form of justice; they are worth close to zero. They reduce civilized people to the level of the Hatfields and the McCoys.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield% … McCoy_feud

Your views?

.

--------- George Santayana

…Speaking of history, you may enjoy reading this book by E. J. Watts.
Its title is Mortal Republic. Here is a link to some reviews of it:
amazon.com/Mortal-Republic- … merReviews

It presents the rise and the fall of The Roman Empire, and explains what we can learn from this decline of an empire.

Do you see the parallels as the USA before our eyes sinks to the status of a third-world nation?
Whereas the retaliatory act of Iran has been proportionate, how many here believe that Trump’s counter-vengeance reaction will be proportionate (rather than extreme)?

Is war “the health” of the State?

Do you want to live through World War III ? Or even through another endless war such as The Gulf / Iraq War ?
Did the USA learn from the Vietnam War experience - and how that ended?
Is the leader of the Free World the type of individual who can appreciate that there is more glory in being a hero of Peace than one who wages war and destruction

Your views?