Hardcore Ethics

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?

Continuing to explain and elucidate the new paradigm for Ethics: …

[b]An Ethical individual has individuality and lives responsibly and purposefully. She or he respects life, has humility, and balance; balances work-life and leisure.
S/he believes human life is significant, and that no one is superior (or inferior) to anyone else and thus entitled to rule over others nor to manipulate them or exploit them.

He, or she, observes moderation, and neither over-values nor under-values. Such a person will neither over-do nor under-do but will get something worthwhile done!

He and she hates violence and war, and will decline to take part in such activity. [The one exception is if our country has been invaded and all diplomatic means have definitely been tried to no avail.] S/he loves justice and kindness[/b].

Do you want to be an ethical individual?
Would you commit to it, and strive for it? …not just say it, but feel it deeply and mean it!!!

Your comments are most welcome

“just as we have two eyes and two feet, duality is a part of life” - Carlos Santana

Thank you George, Carlos.

With the doc’s permission we’d now like to take a moment to examine some variations on the Carlos Santana secret chord progression.

In a recent post I gave some of the attributes of an ethical individual.

There are a couple more I might mention here:

An Ethical person focuses on what really matters.

An Ethical person has Moral Courage. Your life expands and contracts in proportion to your courage.

Whistle-blowers - who expose what is morally questionable in the setting in which they work, be it government or business - have Moral Courage.
Conscientious objectors also have Moral Courage.
It is a great quality to have.

Hence if you want to be ethical you will focus on what really matters (helping others, being kind, sharing, informing of opportunities that may help others to rise, doing what you can to make the world a better place) rather than just looking out for your own personal benefit. In setting your priorities you will place people above things, and things and stuff above unfounded opinions, or dogma. And you will display Moral Courage, even though it might result in some economic hardship or social shunning or societal disdain. You will bravely face the consequences. You will choose to do what’s right.

Your views?

Do you have a good quality to add to the list?

In effect, recent posts have been discussing: How to be an ethical person. Let us continue describing such an individual.

An ethical person wants to make things better!
[In fact, the Axiom of the foundational theory of the new paradigm for Ethics reads: MAKE THINGS BETTER. For details see the discussion in M> C. Katz - The Structure of Ethics]

What this means in practice is that the ethical individual asks himself:“How can I be a better person? How can I improve?
How can I innovate or upgrade this thing, or this situation? How can I make the world better? How can I be more-efficient in getting something worthwhile done?”

“How can I contribute? How can I make progress toward making the world a better place? A more-ethical world would be a better place; so how can I set a better example of living morally? How can I help others have a higher-quality life – for I know this will benefit me in the long run …as then they, and I, will live in a more stable society. Sustainability is important. How can I help make the environment cleaner? How can I recycle more? How can I encourage the use of clean, green alternatives, when it comes to conservation of energy?”

Lot’s of issues have been raised here upon which to reflect.

Do you have any comments??

The following is a passage from the mini-treatise, THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS. I’d like to hear your opinions regarding it. Notice that the writer disagrees with the common usage of the concept “self-interest.” Usually it connotes a selfish focus in distinction to taking everyone else’s interest into account as well as one’s own; but he believes that is a misuse. He holds that if we truly knew our self-interest we would be aware that it does include the concerns of others; it does include caring about the quality of their lives as well as our own. Here is the quote:

Your views?
Where do you stand on these matters?