Conventional Ethics & the new paradigm for Ethics

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?

Do you agree?
There is benefit to cooperation.
There is positive gain in getting others to cooperate with you on getting to a goal that you consider to be worthwhile. You have set a goal for yourself and now you have managed to get someone else to cooperate with you on arriving at that goal; or you learned that others were already working on that goal. You believe this to be valuable. You will be glad to cooperate with them.

What does it take to achieve cooperation?

Human beings are attracted to what gives them pleasure. They are repelled by what gives them pain, and they want to avoid pain. This is an oversimplification, yet it informs us that the attraction can become an addiction: for we will approach the source of please over the long-term.

Complimentary messages are pleasurable to receive. [Example: “You will save money by doing x…” and/or “Doing y will gain for you a better life.”] But warnings of danger [such as “Look out!!! You are about to step in front of moving traffic!”] are short-term oriented. These may be categorized as “fear messages.” They tend to make one freeze up - or instead, to take some very-drastic action.

Ethics teaches us to build other up, to help them rise, to complement them on their talents and accomplishments.

Now the people of the United States are suffering from the Climate Crisis: flooding of agricultural land in the Midwest, destruction of expensive homes along with many deaths from fires in California, severe-hurricane damage on Long Island, etc. What will get through to them to do something to reverse this crisis?

Those who have read some of the references listed below in the signature are aware of the concept of “ethical technologies.” Now a new one is on the horizon. That is the Good News.

It hasn’t come to the USA yet on a large scale but is riding high in South Korea, Japan, and China. They are way ahead of the USA when it comes to employing this technology. I refer to 5G communication.

Why do I speak of it as “Good News”?

5G communication speed, once it becomes common in the USA, may enable more-efficient training and instruction – and thus could possibly speed-up learning. If it is instruction in the Structure of Ethics that is learned, it could facilitate the understanding (the comprehension) that moral individuals already possess.

It might, as a result, encourage someone to start to set a good example – an example of how to live an ethical life: the good life. Such insight - as is found in the papers and booklets linked-to below - may motivate a person to want to be a role model …a model of one who has high standards and who lives by those principles.

What do you think about all this? What say you? Do you have any opinions on any of the topics of this thread??

{Further material on the new paradigm for ethics is available in these threads here at this Forum: Hardcore Ethics; A Guide to Ethical Decision-making; and Ethics Applied to Economics.}

The new paradigm for Ethics leads me to agree with Epicurus that one of the major sources of human unhappiness is fear.

Yet critics would argue that it is fear of the consequences of violating the law is what keeps people in line and maintains social control. Furthermore, it is claimed, that people want to be in control of their fate and destiny; so that is why they avoid committing crimes, cheating others, being violent, even being rude, etc., They avoid violating social norms so that they can stay in control. That is what guides their conduct – not a caring for one another!

But is “keeping in line and staying in line” the same as ethical conduct? Not according to the definition of “ethics” in the new paradigm, in the Unified Theory of Ethics. As you recall, one is being ethical when one Intrinsically-values others, and when one creates value in human interactions. Does avoiding punishment by toeing the line meet this criterion? Hardly.

What are your views on the point that Epicurus, many centuries ago, discussed: nemely, that if you want to be happy seek the simple pleasures of life and let love drive out fear. You will gain a sense of well-being, live the good life, by bonding with others, valuing friendship, sharing and cooperating.

How do you feel about all this?

Epicurus, though, said nothing about these issues: the use of violence, gun safety, women’s rights, democracy versus autocracy.

The New Paradigm does have something to offer on these issues! One may easily derive (from the early assumptions and the Axiom of Ethics) that violence is to be as-completely avoided as possible; that gun owners are to be registered and licensed - since a gun is at least as dangerous as an automobile or truck, and users of vehicles must, by law, have a current registration and license. Also, as a safety precaution, every gun should be triggered only by the fingerprint of the legal owner.

One may also deduce from the theory that a woman has a human aright, the right to her own body …and the use of it. This of course means that if, after due deliberation and extensive consideration of the factors involved, she decides to abort a fetus she is carrying, she has a full right to do so. It is not an individual yet until a baby is born and develops a unique personality.

And the Unified Theory of Ethics most-definitely endorses democracy, both in the workplace and on the national level. Recall the conclusion we derived from the initial assumptions: Do no harm! Ideally workers should be owners, and vice-versa. That is the way to minimize the doing of harm.
The philosopher, Robert S. Hartman, proposed to The Ohio Chamber of Commerce a profit-sharing idea that today is known as the 401K-Plan. It is one very-small way to help workers become owners of the business. It is very widely practiced today by many corporations.
Much better is the structure known as Workers Co-Operatives. In those, through ‘sweat equity,’ a new hire can eventually become a full owner; and no executive can earn any more than four-to-six times what the lowest-paid worker makes as income.

Your ideas??
Do you have observations or comments to make on any of these topics in the field of Applied Ethics?

Hello thinkdr.

I think the highest virtue or good,
is the item and process of life preserving.

The opposite of virtue,
kills or weakens life.

This key then applies to most other ethical questions and ideas.

Healthy ideas, behaviors, actions, etc.
Healthy : life sustaining, or life improving.

Thank you, Dan, for a fine contribution.

You give us much food for thought.

Your values are indeed life-enhancing! You know ethics, and you live ethically: your response to my humble post created value. Your post is really appreciated.

Dan tells us that what is ethically-Good is “the process of life-preserving.” What is bad, he informs us, “weakens life.” And, conversely, what weakens life is bad. This, he says, has enormous implications for all ethical theorizing and for the living of an ethical life.

Yes. I would however phrase it this way: traditional ethics taught that we are to “Do no harm!” The new paradigm for Ethics agrees with this yet it has an affirmative emphasis. It explains that we get the most value in life if we create value in our human interactions. What this means in practice is that we are to enhance the quality-of-life for other individuals …for those with whom we comer into contact, as well as our work aimed to make the world a better place. It is good to work for Social Justice; it is good to push for wiser social policies.

As we do so we are constantly mindful that to enhance the life of others is in turn to benefit ourselves. We are conscious of the fact that the human species is our support group and that “the more we get together the happier we will be” …as the wise children’s song tells us.

We are pre-wired to seek our own benefit. We are conscious that if we help others this will in the long run help us. Thus let’s enhance each other: let’s share, serve, be responsible, be open and transparent. This applies to our attitude toward the Chinese, the Turks, the Russians, and the Brazilians, etc. We will regard them as our friends, our family …we will trust while we verify.

How do you feel about any of these points? Let’s discuss it…

.

Ambiguous made the claim that the New Paradigm is just like the old paradigm but the fact is, IT IS NOT the sane!

Do you see the difference? Can you differentiate how the two are different?

[Yes, the New Paradigm for Ethics does absorb some of the best features and tenets of traditional, conventional ethics-theories, but it builds upon them, modernizes them, includes them as special cases of the Unified Theory of ethics.]

Have you noticed the many enhancements, updates and improvements that make the New Paradigm actually new? If you have, tell us your views of it. Okay?

From the perspective of the new paradigm kindness is not enough; we are directed by the new perspective to continue growing morally throughout life.

It is not enough to do acts of kindness, to be of service, to take on responsibility, but we, if we know our Ethics, will continue to develop morally. How is this done?

We do it by finding, or creating, new moral standards by which to live, and putting them into practice! We are to apply them, to live them, to make them a living reality. Some examples of possible Moral principles were offered in the first post of the thread entitled “Ethics in a Nutshell” ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=196824
What did you think of them when you read them? Is it time to review them? Can you live by them? Why or why not?

Ethics is about how we treat each other. It is about creating value in human relationships. It is about continual moral growth and development. It is about being authentic, truthful, transparent, and real. It is about having a good
character, having integrity, decency, genuineness and good will. It is about caring and wanting to see a more-ethical world …and making progress toward that goal.

Let’s work to help everyone eventually to have a Quality Life.

Your views? Comments? Analysis?

Doing what is good for someone is a wonderful thing.
But it seems some people are born with better tendencies than others.
It is human nature to be able to change things.
It is also human nature to fail at things.
With enough encouragement,
a young person can become more moral than some adults are.

Ethics are for all.

Thank you, Dan, for a fine contribution dedicated to the improvement of our understanding of ethics !!

In what follows, I would like to clarify a few things about the difference between morals and morality. I discussed the latter in the earlier post, the one just preceding this one. Now I would like to ask all readers if the following is helpful?

Groups have moral standards that advocate that people - sometimes at a cost to themselves - act altruistically to benefit other people? Furthermore, groups make the effort to punish, at least by disapproval, people who violate those moral standards? Research has determined that groups have moral standards that advocate altruism because doing so maintains and increases those benefits of cooperation.

An obvious answer to the question is this: Individuals benefit other people simply because they love them. Most families don’t stop to evaluate whether any members of the family are a net asset or not, and then vote them out if they are not. Intrinsic valuation (love) can account for it.

Furthermore, groups enforce moral standards that advocate altruism because, as studies by M. Markus have shown, that enforcement is, almost always, required to maintain those benefits of cooperation. Those are facts of today’s world. This is data about people as they conduct themselves ethically in everyday daily life.

It is important to differentiate all this from the brain incapacity known clinically as Psychopathy. About two percent of the global population are psychopaths. [Does this perhaps include nihilists of all kinds. Maybe even “Moral Nihilists"?]

• The neuroscientist and psychologist Abigail Marsh recently explained what makes a psychopath.
• Marsh said that while psychopathy is a spectrum, all people with it have four defining traits.
• They are pitilessness, remorselessness, an inability to love, and insensitivity to the possibility of harm.

As we all have noticed, moral standards and moral practices (mores) vary widely from culture to culture. Some require women to be submissive and some do not. Some practice slavery and others would not.

Different societies have made various and diverse choices about who will be in a favored in-group (perhaps just men, large land-owners, multi-billionaires, or slave owners) and who will be in out-groups.

And yet it is a fact that variations of the Golden Rule are found in virtually every culture because, as an evolutionist would argue, they are remarkably effective means of defining behaviors that are likely to increase the benefits of cooperation in groups. For example, game theory has provided further data by showing [in its “Tit-for-tat strategy] that “Treat other as you and they would want to be treated, so as to avoid suffering and increase value.” There is additional research data which reveals that punishment by social disapproval of violators is one of the most effective strategies known for maintaining or increasing the benefits of cooperation in groups. {If anyone is interested, in my next post will discuss what makes for a “good theory of ethics.”}

So let us hear from you. Do you have any ideas or concepts to contribute either in the area of ethics, or in systematic ethical theory?

I recently noticed my love for humanity has increased.

This seems to be an above-average rate of change.

Maybe it was an answer to my prayers.

This makes morality and ethics much easier.

My main people are Jesus and the Dali lama.
Dali lama seems more practical than Jesus though.

For these people, love and virtue were easy.

I can agree with this wholeheartedly Dan, and what a good psychological place to have arrived at… the aspect of an unconditional/endless virtuous agape-amore, is a very human(itarian) psyche to have acquired.

I find that others test this aspect of our being far too much, which is far too unhealthy for them to be doing, but still they try.

Thank you both, Dan and MagsJ, for the personal testimony, and for the ongoiing dialog on the topic of ethics! …It is really appreciated.

What follows is more Systemic, and is addressed to all readers and ILP members to make the best use of it. Please evaluate it and feel free to comment on it - or on whatever is interesting to you.

Here is A MORAL ANALYSIS YOU CAN MAKE when you think your activity might be ethically questionable:

1. Does what I am doing (or am about to do) cause the least harm?

2. Would it withstand public scrutiny?

3. Based upon what I understand about the fundamentals of the New Paradigm for Ethics, would it be ethically permissible for anyone in a similar situation to do this?

To summarize and clarify the points made above I shall restate them this way …

A person of good character will make this moral analysis with respect to his or her conduct:
“With regard to the action I am about to take, would it cause harm to anyone?
And would it withstand public scrutiny?

And is there an alternative I might pursue that would not give pain to anyone?
Most of all, how can I create a win-win outcome in this situation?”

Thank you both, Dan and MagsJ, for the personal testimony, and for the ongoiing dialog on the topic of ethics! …It is really appreciated.

What follows is more Systemic, and is addressed to all readers and ILP members to make the best use of it. Please evaluate it and feel free to comment on it - or on whatever is interesting to you.

Here is A MORAL ANALYSIS YOU CAN MAKE when you think your activity might be ethically questionable:

1. Does what I am doing (or am about to do) cause the least harm?

2. Would it withstand public scrutiny?

3. Based upon what I understand about the fundamentals of the New Paradigm for Ethics, would it be ethically permissible for anyone in a similar situation to do this?

To summarize and clarify the points made above I shall restate them this way …

A person of good character will make this moral analysis with respect to his or her conduct:
“With regard to the action I am about to take, would it cause harm to anyone?
And would it withstand public scrutiny?

And is there an alternative I might pursue that would not give pain to anyone?
Most of all, how can I create a win-win outcome in this situation?”

Then I’d like to hear your comments. Or questions on these basic points

1. “Ethics” and “morality” are now two distinct concepts in the New Paradigm offered in this thread, and in the References in the signature below.

2. “Ethics” refers to creating value in human interactions. It is also a term referring to the study of the implications that follow from the practice of expressing the new perspective. This perspective is seen when an individual highly-values another individual. This valuation is known technically as “Intrinsic valuation.” When you value someone this way you at least show respect (as much as you can - depending on your capacity to do so.) Then you go even further.

3. To go further is to, for example, give a sincere compliment, make people smile or feel good about themselves, boost a person up in some manner, help the person out, help him or her to gain opportunity, find a way too be of service, be considerate of his or her feelings …or, in some way manage to enhance value.

4. “Morality,” in this new paradigm, means being true to your true self - in this sense: you develop increased morality by adding new positive ethical standards to those you live by, and by actually living up to these guidelines – thus setting a good example for others. This is a process of moral growth that is to continue throughout your entire lifetime. {Other moral principles you learned about in the Unified Theory of Ethics are: The Inclusivity Principle and The Consistency Principle.}

5. From the above points being understood and experienced in daily life; note that all the rest of ethics- [such as the principle: Do no harm! may be derived; all the rest follows.

I’ve been away for a while. It’s good to be back!

What do you all think, after studying my recent post above? Do you have any impressions of it? Share them. Please let me know your critique.