.
--------- 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?
Allow me to explain why a new approach, a new Ethics, is urgently necessary.
i If you are reading this it is safe to assume you are alive. If the question came up, “Do you want to continue living?” under normal circumstances many, if not most, would answer: “Yes, I want to live, and I want to live well.” An empirical survey would find that most normal people want to be healthy, and they want to be content. They would like to have some leisure time to enjoy, and they want to be able to freely pursue a freely-chosen project, a game, a sport, or a hobby. If given a choice, most want harmonious human relationships.
For that Ethics is necessary. It shows how to achieve those goals, how to get ‘into the flow’, how to use one’s capacities, how to express ‘the inner artist.’ It teaches you how to be fully yourself.
You, I, and everyone – we all need Ethics. This means we all need to know our SEIs as well as we know our ABCs. Study the paper Basic Ethics -a link to which is offered in the Signature below - and you will understand what SEI means.
“Science” – according to its root, scientia in Latin – can be taken to mean: a field of study with practical, empirical implications. In this sense, Ethics may be said to be a ‘science,’ since it is designed to be a body of useful information that helps us function better.
As will become rather clear as one delves into the new paradigm further, since the principles of Ethics are in the self-interest of every individual, it would not be rational to ignore them. [
Experience shows that it would be irrational to violate your own self-interest. This is just common sense. At this point a couple of definitions would be helpful. First, the principles of Ethics as a group comprise what we will designate as “the Moral Law.” That is what will in this context be meant by that phrase.
Next, obligation” equals by definition “our duty to follow the Moral Law.” We are obliged to comply with it. Of course people may violate their obligation, and many likely will try to, but just like attempts to violate the Law of Gravity there are consequences. The Law of Gravity is a law of nature; the Moral Law is a set of derived conclusions that are laws of human nature – both sorts of ‘law’ are subject to revision and upgrading as better insight is gained. Physical law has often been modified - or relegated to a subset of the big picture - as new models are employed that better account for the data. The same will happen in Ethics.
Human beings, by nature, are valuing beings: we make value judgments all day long. A value judgment is part cognitive and part feeling. Some emotion is invested in virtually every valuation. Gravity is constantly operative, and just as reliable is the fact that humans are constantly creating values …every time they judge, whether explicitly or tacitly. We differentiate, we assume, we conclude – all forms of value-judgment.
If the ethical question is: “How shall I live?” – and according to Virtue Ethics that is the chief question to ponder - the Ethical answer is for each of us to truthfully be able to say: “ I should be a good person, one who cares about Social Justice, one who seeks to maximize well-being (quality of life) for one and all. I seek moral outcomes. I want to be one who reasons well, who has control of my emotions, and who has found inner peace. Then I will be that kind of person who aims in the Intrinsic direction, and thus ‘gets it right’ most of the time. There is more to it, of course, but it helps if one knows his Ethics, understands the HOV {explained in the essay, BASIC ETHICS.
It is a testable hypothesis that those who form the habit of valuing Intrinsically are likely to design better systems and norms that enable us to do more with less time, energy, and resources; and are likely to engage in effective action. Effective action is action done with the aim of providing a quality life for all concerned. The latter is ‘the ultimate purpose’ of this ethical system. In a future post we shall bring up topics in practical daily life, as well as in social ethics.
Yes, Ethics is catching on !! 
Let’s turn now to social ethics.
Any society that restricts the opportunity for its citizens, or its group members, to get education is unethical. If the society subjugates its citizens it is unethical. If it denies the opportunity for its members to get therapy it is unethical too.
Every society ought to make education, therapy, and opportunity freely available. Every ethical society will. To hamper the right to vote is sufficient cause to label the society that does that as unethical. Social Justice is a part of Justice, in general, and justice is a part of ethics. This is explained and analyzed in the first portion of A Unified Theory of Ethics, which is written in dialog form. Here is a link: http://tinyurl.com/crz6xea
Insist on your right to vote, and to take advantage of that right by actually voting. Civic responsibility is implied. It does teach that if - say, in the everyday situation of going to a webpage such as this one at a forum - you are to have, and keep, your peace of mind, your serenity. Hence, you would not get too excited, would not lose your cool, would enjoy being peaceful.
In sum, I have made several predictions which can be experimentally tested, and replicated. This is good scientific procedure.
An individual ignores science at his peril !!!
Q. A critic may object as follows:
“ No new approach to ethics is necessary unless it describes some “everyday problems and explains how to handle them.”
A. Giving moral principles to live by - no matter what problems come up – doesn’t that have value? Note that Rush Kidder of the Institute for Global Ethics gave many illustrations of the kind you are requesting in his marvelous book, How Good People Make Tough Choices (NY, Simon & Schuster Fireside Books, 1966). [This book, still highly-relevant today, is available via Amazon.]
Q. “Are you proposing that every individual human read and be aware of that extended body of knowledge you linked to? …do you think that an individual in order to live and act in harmony with the ethical and moral principles that should guide us as a society MUST read that in order to be able to make good ethical decisions?”
A. No, it is not necessary that every individual on Earth know the intricacies of the Science of Ethics any more than they need to know the same for the Science of Physics. They do learn how to throw a light switch, and how to run a washing machine, how to dial a phone, how to use a remote control in the physical realm, and they likely will learn how to enjoy the ethical technologies that I see resulting from the new science of Ethics.
The theory need only be learned by students who have a deep interest in the theoretical branch of moral philosophy - in contrast with those who are more interested in Aesthetics or Literary Interpretation. Such students, with a bent for theory, a knowledge of Math or of Logic, and a curiosity about ethics, could likely be the pioneers pf this new field of research. The project is to construct a system that is ready to transition into a real science. Even now, while the field is very young, we already have technologies emerging.
In other posts and threads I have listed some of the many existing ethical technologies, such as, for a few examples: song lyrics - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cEZjSp0ZSQ%20- ;
X-Prizes, - http://www.xprize.org/ ;
the proliferation of coaching and motivation websites on the internet; the Kahn Academy giving free lessons on You Tube, the jury system,
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/busin … R0w11yL4TQthe business-school promise - [/url] ;
the video conference - mobileoffice.about.com/od/confer … -tools.htm - ;
Axiogenics - amindforsuccess.com/?page_id=6009 - ; etc
Here is yet another group of websites worth visiting, as a CBS anchor initiates a TV show titled “Kindness on the Road.” Check out this series !
youtube.com/playlist?list=P … uHzJ1vcIu_
What is your impression of this effort to teach Ethics to little kids?
.
.
.
Thanks to Steve Hartman, in 2020, for suggesting some ideas for improving the scope of scientific Ethics. The first of these is what we shall speak of as AF. The second concept is abbreviated EMP; which stands for Empathy. Let us begin by explaining AF.
Altruistic feeling [or AF for short] is caring about the happiness of another more than your own short-term happiness… When you do this, if when you are kind to someone else you feel that you get more in return than you gave …you get this good feeling; that is AF. If giving away something makes you happier than getting something then you have AF. In this sense, selfless acts often boomerang back to the one who acts kindly. That is how AF is understood in Ethics: in a sense “giving and receiving are the same” for the one who experiences AF.
Empathy, or EMP, is understanding and sharing another person’s feelings. To “walk in their shoes” is a metaphor for imagining their position. If, for example, you encounter a homeless person and you say to yourself, “What if that were me?” then you have EMP. Many a mother says about her child: “Whatever my child feels, I feel. If my child is in pain, I feel pain; if my child experiences joy, then I am joyful ” That is EMP. Brain neurologists explain this in terms of ‘mirror neurons.”
If, in a crowded room one person laughs, many others in that room also laugh. If someone yawns, we notice others yawning as well. We see this happening at a young age, even with babies and toddlers: If one of them starts to cry, another will get into a depressed mood also, and their eyes will tear up. This is a common display of EMP. Empathy [or EMP for short] is the imagining, or a capacity to imagine, the thought, feeling, or experience of another without actually having that experience.
Compassion – we learn from Webster’s Dictionary - refers to both an understanding of another’s pain and the desire to somehow mitigate that pain. It entails a strong identification with another creature …whether or not a member of one’s own species.
Do you have any suggestions or ideas on these, or related, topics? 
Help us out here with your clarifications or similar breakthroughs. Okay?
WHAT COOPERATION, TEAM SPIRIT, AND SOME CREATIVITY CAN DO
You may enjoy listening to this video. Go directly to where, at the bottom of the screen, it reads 0:41/3:59 - it begins with a bass fiddle. [size=85]{That way - if you wish - you skip the players introducing themselves in Dutch.}[/size]
Rotterdams Philharmonisch Orkest
youtu.be/3eXT60rbBVk
You’ll find it to be kind’a cool
It moved me to tears; for I want it to be a model for the world. How great it feels when brothers and sisters of the human family in solidarity can cooperate on a worthwhile project!!!
…And here is more by the same group:
youtube.com/watch?v=kayw0iXoK7g
After you view it, let me know what were your impressions?
George Packer, in The Atlantic, argues that the USA is broken.
theatlantic.com/magazine/ar … ns/610261/
Is this a sound argument?
I believe he makes some good points. …about the United States – which is where he l lives and works.
What is your view about the state of ethics as applied in the United States by its federal administration?
Is the new way of looking at ethics (the study and the practice of it) as presented in The Structure of Ethics document, and as further amended in the posts here by thinkdr, what you would evaluate as being useful knowledge?
Please let us know. We would appreciate your response.
I believe that Ethics is useful knowledge.
To us human beings, human life is important.
When you hold the position that human life is significant, and you apply this view to those human individuals in your presence you are ready to be ethical. If you then create value so that both you yourself and those you interact with win something, share in the value, you ARE ethical.
That is what we learn from the Unified Theory of Ethics (also known as Ethics.) This insight will time and again prove to be beneficial to you. Thus it is useful knowledge to have and to be aware of.
Q.E.D.
On Diversity-within-Unity as an ethical concept
“Out of the many, One” is a slogan (in the Latin language) found on some United States currency:E pluribus Unum.
Today, though, there is a tendency on the part of the U.S. Administration to divide us, rather than to appreciate our diversity, and to unite us.
We ought not think in terms of “Left” vs. “Right”; nor of the poor vs. the rich; nor of one subculture [ethnic group] vs. another subculture. Rather, we would better compare the desperate vs. the resourceful; those who lack awareness compared with those who are reasonably-well-off due to their awareness. Being ignorant or lacking awareness is a problem. To help remedy the problem let us put a floor under income,by our working and campaigning to implement some kind of UBI – a universal basic income plan.
Such a plan would not cover the entire ‘cost of living.’ Maybe it would just cover the average rent payment. Thus people would still have to work to earn their food, their clothing, and some luxuries. It would, however, serve to make a dent in homelessness - which is a state of affairs thatr contributes greatly to desperation.
This income floor, by guaranteeing certain basics of life, would liberate us all. Thus it is an “ethical technology.”
Once it is in effect, genius will out. People will have more freedom than they do today to express their ‘inner artist.’ New inventions, new technologies are likely to emerge that result in making our lives more-comfortable, or more-efficient, or that enable more of us to get educated. These events will make the lives of all of us more effective. (For that is what “effectiveness” means: more inclusiveness, more empathy, more compassion, more Intrinsic valuation, i.e., more love for one another!)
The real divide to overcome is that between the ignorant and the aware!:!:
How do you feel about this?
.
Joshua Greene, Ph.D. is an experimental psychologist, neuroscientist, and philosopher. He studies moral judgment and decision-making, primarily using behavioral experiments and functional neuroimaging (fMRI). Other interests include religion, cooperation, and the capacity for complex thought
. He is the author of an easy-to-read, very-well-written book which I highly recommend titled:
Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them (Atlantic Books, 2014).
His research interests are: Moral judgment and decision-making; cooperation and conflict-resolution; the neural bases of high-level cognition (multimodal compositional semantics
[size=85]The Joshua D. Greene lab, in William James Hall at Harvard University, studies the mechanics of moral thinking, and high-level cognition more generally, using behavioral experiments and functional neuroimaging. Much of their research has focused on the respective contributions of “fast” automatic processes (such as emotional “gut reactions”) and “slow” controlled processes (such as reasoning and self-control). The lab has applied this dual-process framework to classic hypothetical dilemmas, real temptations toward dishonesty, beliefs about free will and punishment, belief in God, wishful thinking, cooperation, and conflict resolution.
More recent work aims to understand the infrastructure of complex thought. This research examines how concepts combine to form ideas, how ideas are represented and manipulated through reasoning, the representation of propositional attitudes (e.g. believing something is true vs. wanting it to be true), and the relationship between linguistic and sensory modes of thinking.[/size]
As noted in M. C. Katz -THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS book, Moral Psychology is the experimental branch of the science of Ethics. [See link below for further details.]
.
A human being, X, is uncountably-valuable to another human being, Y, because individual X might serve as part of a support network for Y – no matter how deranged X may be; he may prove to be of use, be helpful, in some weird unpredictable way in a time of crisis or challenge.
We need each other, for when you come right down to it we are fragile and insignificant when confronted with the forces of Nature, and relative to the size of our Universe. [Ask one of the people who lived in a fine, luxurious home in Paradise, California; or who lived in New Orleans in the path of Hurricane Katrina. See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l … ral_arches]
Human individuals depend upon others in order to survive – even though they may not be aware of it, or may lie to themselves about it.
Let us know if you agree. Do we need each other?
If so, let’s discuss in future posts what follows from that.
…Continuing along with the topic of the previous posts.
From a very wise friend, and teacher, the philosopher and logician Robert S. Hartman, I learned that each individual – [with an occasional exception who is a madman, an evil genius, or who has a criminal mind] – is uncountably-valuable.
Hartman assigned that concept the cardinal number, aleph-one, which is the power of the continuum. {When this kind of valuation is taking place the valuer and what is being valued form a continuum.} That is also the measure of a dimension of value named Intrinsic Value. He explained that that is the very definition of Ethics:
Ethics is the field of study, and application in practice, that arises when an individual, or group of them, is Intrinsically valued.
One of the major derivations from this is what most agree is a reasonable claim, namely, that Ethics is concerned with the good life for the good person, as well as with those principles that have value for us to live by.
For more details, and to see some few of the myriad of implications of that definition, see the References below.
Once you have studied those documents, let us know here if you believe you have learned anything you didn’t know before. Okay?
Or, better yet, write a brief review of what you liked best.
There are multiple ethical approaches. It depends on your axioms and goals.