A Guide to Ethical Decision-making

First, I want to acknowledge the profound contribution to Philosophy by Dr. Hartman. The invention or discovery of the three dimensions of value as a fact of the human universe, as well as their application to the topic of ethical norms, are due to the philosopher, Robert S. Hartman. He gets the credit

I want to thank Tab and observr524 for a stimulating discussion showing an awareness of the Ethical-theory analysis of the Means-Ends relationship. viz., a moral End-in-view does not justify the use of immoral means to get there.

When an individual becomes ethical - or more ethical - as a result of your influence it is not because of what you say, or tell him or her; it is because of your example of living ethically. We learn ethics primarily by example.

If the person sees that you do not cheat, cut corners, get corrupt, manipulate or deceive merely for your own benefit, he/she may emulate you. If he or she sees that you are authentic, transparent with regard to your motives, honest, generous, considerate, inclusive; kind and compassionate he/she may be inspired by your shining example.

Hence it is up to you to make the commitment to be a decent person, form the habits of living ethically, and show that you are humbly striving to orally improve.

I hope that this speaks to your concern, MagsJ.

No such thing as “truly free” as long as there is mankind.

They will program their androids to be exactly as they want you to be.

Or, perhaps, we might call it the serious philosopher’s guide to ethical decision-making.

Thank you, iambiguous.

Note that in the first item in the References below, the booklet entitled THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS, on page 42, a tool for moral self-analysis is provided. Wouldn’t you agree that that tool can also serve as a serious guide for Ethical decision-making?
I think it does.

I failed to mention something important pertaining to the topic of this thread.

Intrinsic Value is far, far more valuable to us than Extrinsic Value is. [I-values have at least as large number of properties as a continuous line segment has points. E-values have as many properties as there are integers. The former - the number of repeating and non-repeating decimal fractions - is infinitely-larger than the latter.]

In turn, the Extrinsic values are way larger in value than the Systemic values.

Therefore, when considering which way to go when making an ethical decision, give preference to the Intrinsic reasons. They are to carry more weight.

Comments? Questions? Discussion?

From page 42:

"To be enlightened is to put people first, things next, and dogmatic ideas last. It is to live by the Hierarchy of Value discovered by Robert S. Hartman, the wise philosopher-scientist. "

Hartman is no longer with us. What I would need then is for someone who shares his frame of mind to discuss this given a particular set of circumstances in which there are conflicting assessments of what it means to put people first, things second and dogmatic ideas last.

In other words, without their own moral and political value judgments becoming dogmatic in turn. After all, to propose a “hierarchy of value” would certainly seem to suggest [to me] going in that direction. Imagine, for example, the hierarchies proposed by a libertarian and a socialist. Or a hedonist and an ascetic.

That is why, as a moral nihilist, I still subscribe to moderation, negotiation and compromise as, for all practical purposes, the best of all possible world. Only, even here, “I” am no less fractured and fragmented. Pulled ambivalently in conflicting directions down in my “hole”.

The embodiment of this intellectual contraption:

“If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.”

And here all I can do is to take these words out into the world and describe how they are implicated in my own day to day interactions with others.

I congratulate you, iambiguous, for your intellectual and moral courage in doing the research and following through, actually reading some of the writing in the booklet.The paragraph you quoted at the outset of your comments was indeed on p. 42; but it was not what I intended as a “tool for decision-making.”

The paragraph of which you may have been critical referred to matters discussed at greater length earlier in the document. The applications given in that context were illustrations of the use of the value dimensions. They were only examples, and here they were out of context. Sorry about the confusion; I did not make myself clear enough.

{The value dimensions themselves are rigorously-derived in the first 28 pages of Basic Ethics: a systematic approach.
The entire demonstration there is only Systemic value, and thus worth the least of the three basic dimensions.
Applications of these dimensions to life is worth much more!
And the living of that life, embodying those applications is worth infinitely more!!

Here is another illustration:

I: Dasein, and all it implies to you, and I, and to Heidegger

E: the socio-economic affairs of everyday life

S: systems, theories, ideologies, dogma, creeds and other intellectual
postulations

What I meant to refer to is located in the pdf file at the bottom of p.41 and the top of p. 42 in THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS treatise.
I shall, upon request, reprint that Tool For Ethical Decision-making in a future post for those who for some reason can’t or won’t do what you did, which is to click on the link and actually look at the booklet.

Thank you again. And thanks in advance to anyone else who is moved to contribute constructively on this thread’s topic.

Again and again and again and again: this [to me] is just another example of a “general description intellectual contraption”. It may or may not be applicable as a guide to ethical decision making.

My own interest however revolves around the extent to which didactic assumptions of this sort are applicable to particular contexts in which human behaviors come into conflict over value judgments. The part where ethics “for all practical purposes” has an actual use value and exchange value.

You note that…

But: I only chose to read that page in the booklet looking for arguments that do bring premises and conclusions of this sort out into the world that we interact in.

I’m looking for arguments able to convince me that the manner in which I construe “I” in the is/ought world [re dasein, conflicting goods and political economy] is not a reasonable frame of mind.

So, sure, if applied ethics is not what you are interested in yourself, we ought to move on to others.

I’ll tell you what Dasein means to me.

It comes from the German word meaning ‘presence.’ [Literally, it says '‘here be.’]
To me it means: BE HERE NOW !!!
Squeeze every drop of meaning out of the present moment.
The past is dead and gone. It is water under the bridge. There is no use brooding over it.
No one I know can see the future. The paradox is that if we give up the need for security, we are secure. We will never leave this world alive. There is no use worrying about the future! Cross a bridge when you come to it. It is all right to make plans now, but don’t let that planning rob from the total enjoyment of the present. Husserl calls it ‘Intentionality.’ Bergson calls it ‘compenetration.’ Robert S. Hartman speaks of it as ‘Intrinsic valuation.’ [size=50]{Those who write a dissertation on what it meant to Heidegger may earn a Ph.D. for a thesis done well.}[/size]

Dasein is a focus on the here and now, avoiding getting distracted. It is interacting with the world in which we live. It is believing strongly in goodness - that it will solve every problem. So be good, and thus merit and facilitate these solutions. Goodness when it is mobilized and organized can be very powerful.

Incidentally, what I wrote in the previous posts definitely can be applied to the lived-in world with which we interact! Think about it.

.

Here is an additional guide to Ethical decision-making, one that is to be used especially when an individual is tempted to become an embezzler, or to engage in a questionable business practice, or succumb to a sleazy opportunistic bargain of some sort. In other words, when you are about to corrupt yourself use this tool:

A tool for moral self-analysis

A person of good character will make the following moral analysis with respect to his or her conduct. He or she will say to himself or herself:

“With regard to the action I am about to take,
[b]Would it cause harm to anyone? And

Would it withstand public scrutiny?

Is there an alternative action I may pursue that would not give pain to anyone?

How can I create a win/win transaction in this situation?”[/b]

…Your views on this topic?

Okay, this is what it means to you. And to them. But, given a particular set of circumstances in which a guide is needed in order to make ethical decisions, how is that meaning translated into an actual reason that propels you to choose this behavior rather than another?

In the manner in which I encompass my own meaning of dasein, “I” here is an existential contraption rooted historically, culturally and interpersonally out in a particular world understood in a particular way.

With respect to a context that revolves around, say, human sexuality, each individual “I” has come to embody his or her own set of experiences out in a particular world. And these experiences go a long way in shaping their moral and political value judgments.

But, taking that into consideration, what then can philosophers ascertain so as to provide us with the most rational guide to ethical decision making.

You will either go there or you won’t. Instead, in my view, you choose to stay here:

Another general description intellectual contraption.

Right, “generally”.

But note a specific set of circumstances and describe in some detail that which guides you to make ethical decisions. In such a way that this reflects your own understanding of dasein. In such a way that you are able to articulate why you believe that your way is more reasonable than mine.

At this site reached via the following link, the reader will find more than 80 cases where the tools and guides I offer would be very relevant; these guides if employed would have prevented the ethically-questionable behavior, the bad conduct. See the videos here:
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-studies

Also, this book has many moral dilemmas to consider - which my guides would have solved if only they were used. See
Rushworth M. Kidder, HOW GOOD PEOPLE MAKE TOUGH CHOICES (1995, New York,Fireside Books, Simon & Schuster) …available from The Institute for Global Ethics.
To see Reviews, scroll down from here: amazon.com/product-reviews/ … RY5Z79DXW8

Comments? Questions? Suggestions for enhancing the proposed guides?

That’s what guided them. I want to know what guided you. What in particular influenced you in a context in which your value judgments were challenged by another.

As I note time and again, I am interested in exploring the ethical narratives and the political agendas of others in the manner in which I explore my own here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

In other words, the manner in which the life that you lived intertwined both experiences, relationships and access to information, knowledge and ideas such that here and now you are predisposed existentially to think one thing rather than another. With me, on that thread, it was in regard to abortion. With you, it can be anything you choose.

Only after exploring the part I ascribe to dasein, does it make sense [to me] to bring the philosophers into it. Is there in fact a way deontologically to take the components of my own moral assessment into account and still manage to arrive at one’s moral obligation in regard to an issue like abortion?

It’s not about me !

The Ethical Theory proposed has to stand on its own feet. In recent posts – in the thread entitled Hardcore Ethics - viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195052&p=2758896#p2758896 - I offer some characteristics of an ethical individual. Those attributes, along with logical reasoning, enable a person to make wise choices …probably guided by the criteria given in the original post, and the subsequent additional tools.

Merely select a case study, either from the many offered by Rush Kidder in his book, HOW GOOD PEOPLE MAKE TOUGH CHOICES; or choose a case from the Behavioral Ethics site of the Univ. of Texas at Austin, and see what you, as an ethical person,would do in that situation. This assumes that you have acquired the qualities listed in that description of ‘an ethical individual.’ It assumes that you, personally, now have those features mentioned.
I I hope and trust that assumption is not unwarranted.

Sorry, but this sort of thing is just not what I am interested in. Instead, my interest revolves around taking the theoretical “in general” conclusions that the people above make out into the world of actual human interactions. A description and exploration of human interactions in which behaviors come into conflict as a result of conflicting value judgments.

It could be a discussion of abortion, or Trump’s Wall, or Brexit or homosexuality or separation of church and state or the role of government or any other particular context in which actual flesh and blood human beings move beyond technical philosophical arguments and bring the definitions and the meaning derived from them out into the world of conflicting goods. The stuff we are bombarded with day in and day out on the various news media.

And my own bottom line here is that an “ethical person” is basically an existential contraption construction – “I” – predisposed to embrace one rather than another set of political prejudices derived more from the life that he or she lives than from anything they might garner from say, this: plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

But that’s just me.

We are both interested in actual human interaction. I, for one, do not want to settle for a description of the chaos and confusion that exists now.

Rather, I would like to focus on how, and in what way, by using the knowledge we can gain from the sciences, we can make the transition to moral clarity and to the setting of wise priorities.

That is why I am grateful that a profound philosopher, Robert S. Hartman (1910-1973) came along. He devised Formal Axiology. He explained clearly value formation, and how the human mind organizes its values. He discovered the existential Hierarchy of Values that was there in the universe all the while but was just not noticed nor appreciated. He brought that HOV to light.

With the aid of that logical-ordering of priorities people can know what goals to work toward, what to aim for, what stands to take, which way to go. That’s where The Guides to better-decision-making come in: they are tools in a toolchest; so that when an issue such as abortion arises one knows what’s important, viz., caring about the woman’s feelings. Caring, not labels. Love, not ideology.

Maybe, at this point, it is helpful to re-read the original post in this thread, realizing that the Intrinsic considerations are more valuable to us human beings than are the Extrinsic, or the Systemic. Recall the formula: I > E > S.

Comments? Questions?

Knowledge, okay. But, given a particular context in which there are conflicting goods, what knowledge is there [scientific or philosophical] that produces the sort of moral clarity and list of priorities able to obviate the components of my own considerably more “fractured and fragmented” moral philosophy: nihilism.

But then this:

From my frame of mind, yet another “general description intellectual contraption”. An abstract assessment those embracing utterly conflicting moral and political and philosophical assumptions can accept — but only by way of having a use value and an exchange value that sustains just their own desired “rules of behavior”. Predicated on their own moral and political prejudices.

Again, we will either settle in on a set of circumstances in which to explore our respective “world of words” or we are wasting each other’s time.

Wouldn’t that acceptance be a good outcome? I should think so. Yet one notes here more “buts” than a ram in heat.

I don’t want to waste anyone’s time. I gave an issue - namely, abortion - and showed how I would deal with it.

{ Ethics teaches that autonomy and individuality are values that everyone is entitled to, and should have. Thus a woman has a right to decide on how her body is used. Intelligent people distinguish between a fetus and a human individual with a unique personality. Such an individual is valued Intrinsically by those who are ethical. In contrast, a growth or a cluster of cells, is valued Systemically by most people who know their values. Recall that Intrinsic valuation is infinitely-more-valuable to us human beings than is Systemic valuation. I > S.}

Furthermore, I gave you more than eighty issues and asked you to select one, say, one where there was a conflict between two positive values - such as loyalty versus community, for example - and you declined to select one of those case-studies for me to which to apply my analysis. {Rush Kidder’s book had plenty of these excellent moral dilemmas!]

Hence, for these reasons I get the impression that a certain nihilist does not want to learn the knowledge about which he expresses curiosity; for if he did, he would read up on Robert Hartman’s contribution, or he would study carefully some of the literature to which links are supplied below.

This is a classic example of someone making certain political assumptions about abortion and then distinguishing between what intelligent people are obligated to think in regard to an unwanted pregnancy and what unintelligent people think instead. One of us/one of them.

Like those on the other side are not able to articulate their own rendition of this relationship in defending the right of the unborn baby to live. Or in defending their own set of assumptions in regard to when human life begins – from the point of conception on.

Recall that obtuse intellectual contraptions like this are precisely what I aim to avoid in regard to our reactions to any particular set of circumstances in which a woman is pregnant and does not want to be.

That’s not where I focus my argument though. My aim is to explore your “analysis” – anyone’s analysis – as an existential contraption rooted in dasein. In any particular context involving a conflict between the individual and the community, there are going to be values/loyalties in conflict. Take conscription for example: connectusfund.org/10-meaningful … ry-service

My argument suggests that any particular individual will derive his or her values more from the sequence of experiences in his or her life [out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially] rather than as an ethicist able to actually pin down [philosophically or otherwise] one’s moral obligation here.

You are here agreeing with me that people learn ethics more often by example rather than by the deduction of a conclusion from a logical, well-reasoned argument. They see conduct by someone they respect, or love, and they copy it. Or, as R. S. Hartman, the philosopher, would put it: I-Value [Intrinsic valuation] is greater than (ttakes priority over) E-value [Extrinsic valuation - or empirical, pragmatic considerations.]