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]
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!!!
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.
“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!:!:
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.
Okay. But would you grant that some approaches are better than others, and that some goals are more-valuable to us than are others?
An approach that contains variables in its formulation – such as in its definition of “moral goodness,” is better than one which does not; because it covers more territoy: it applies more widely. It is a function of what constants [what empirical examples or cases] are plugged in as an instance of each of the variables.
What do you think about the axiom and initial definition offered in The Structure of Ethics - which document is the first item mentioned in the References?
As clearly explained in the College Course treatise, I use R. S. Hartman’s Axiom of Value, which is his definition of the concept “good.” {Specifically, he defines it contextually, as “X is a good C”, i.e., X is a good instance of the concept C. C is the concept under which X falls, as framed by the judge of the value}
There is a distinction between fact and value that is akin to a crevice at the top of a high mountain. That crevice opens up to an infinitely-deep abyss.
Fact and value are distinct concepts; however I will grant you that each stated fact is permeated with and surrounded by many values (such as biases), and the soundest value-judgments are based on empirical fact: the more factual evidence you can offer to back it up, the more confirmed and reliable is the valuation.
Actually, what R.S. Hartman defines is “x is a good (most-highly valuable)
C (instance of the concept named C) as valued by judge J, at time t.” This is clearly explained in M.C. Katz, ETHICS: A College Course. Study that document and then let me know if you have a question.
As to your next point, yes I have an argument as to how values depend upon known facts. Creativity is a value. In the creative process, factual properties are rearranged to produce something new and creative.
Say we mention two properties such as green and soft. The creative mind will aright away come up with “a green sweater!” or “a scoop of pistachio ice-cream!” or both. And maybe even with a few other examples. If a third property must be considered, such as “edible”", then it narrows it down to the ice-cream.
When Velco tape [textol.com/] for example, was invented, some known facts were re-arranged to produce the new concept: that is creativity at work.
That is one way that value is derived from facts.
BTW Those who think “Donald Trump is doing a good job” for his country" either do not know the facts, or do not have good values [i.e., ethical values.]
As for Trump’s performances against what he had promised, note the following FACTs; promiseskept.com/
Therein is a VERY LONG list of Trump’s accomplishments within his terms of employment.
I do agree Trump did not perform the best re the Covid19 [it is an embarrassment to the USA] but besides his own failing on this set back, there were also much resistance from his opponents.
Trump is definitely not perfect [but which past President was?] but relatively Trump has done his job effectively as expected within his terms of employment.
Being boorish, narcissistic, and other psychological negatives [not in the extremes] are not within his terms of employment as a servant of the US Government.
In his latest speech at the RNC, Trump promised to end “endless wars”. Whether he can do it or not, at least he had put his reputation on the line and declared a promise very explicitly. Obviously this promise of ending ‘endless wars’ is a moral goal and he need to keep his promise is also a moral issue.
What you have failed here is to weigh things in balance rationally but rather is driven blindly by a very bias tribalistic impulse due to psychological reasons. Being a non-American I can be more rational and objective.
Have you read Jonathan Haidt’s - The Righteous Mind.: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
But being tribalistic is the political tour De force in the accepted way things are done here, with constituency perfectly accepting such unbalanced method of undermining their opponents.
It really does play out as 'politics as usual, 'and it is the opposite feigned effort to feign some supposed neutral objectivity which raises eyebrows.
If Trump proposes to end "endless wars why doesn’t he do it right now? It is still under his watch that he permits the Afghanistan War {as well as much turmoil he is provoking in The Middle East} to go on.
And his propaganda site to which you refer us tells us he has accomplished much for jobs and the economy! So why don’t the majority of U.S. residents feel prosperous and content? Is it possible that jobs are not available because people have been laid off - due to the marvelous economy
I am surprised with your rational thinking given that you were a professor, is it that your rational competence has eroded due to aging? Atrophy of brain cells is very natural with aging and it a question of how much and degrees.
Ending wars is not an easy task as merely clicking one’s fingers and it will be done. Existing wars entail a complex entanglement of a multitudes of variables which take time to ‘unknot’. We can judge him on his promise of ending wars in say 3 years time.
Trump had managed to secure peace between UAE and Israel which no President who attempted has succeeded [you’r ignorant of this?]. He is doing his best to achieve peace in the Middle East but again this is a very complex issue especially when Islam [inherently evil] is involved.
Propaganda site?? This is very open to fact checking and verification. Some claims may be too optimistic but I don’t hear or read of any glaring lies therein.
Due to the Covid19 pandemic, lockdown, social distancing, and other hindrances, there is an economic downturn everywhere in various degrees and there are hardly an exceptions with any Nations in the world.
Therefore you should at least judge what Trump did before the Covid19 pandemic and based on that potential, what he can do after the end of the Covid19 pandemic when a vaccine is discovered.
Why not judge his handling of the entire Covid Pandemic? The spread of it occurred during his watch. What makes one believe that once a vaccine is discovered and extensively tested for safety [on at least 3000 volunteers] that will be the end of the Corona virus? Influenza is still around. Many folks do not want to put poison inside their body, for they see that as a dangerous practice, counter to good health. They are fussy what they ingest.
I believe to judge or do an employee appraisal, one need to take all the plus and minuses, put the appropriate weight on them then make the final judgment taking all relevant information into consideration.
As I see it objectively, Trump appraisal as a government servant is net plus over minuses.
It is true, on paper, the President there is ‘no buck for the President to pass on’ thus has to bear the responsibility.
But based on information, the Covid19 infection rates and deaths has to be looked into deeper before we assign reasonable responsibilities and accountability.
It is fact the USA has the highest rate of infection and death but if we look at the total statistics State wise, those states and cities controlled by Democrats has the highest rates of infection and death.
Surely as a American you understand the Federal Government do not have full control over the health matters within the State level.
If we look world wise, Brazil, India, Russia also has millions of infections albeit lesser millions. If the USA has 6 millions infections and the second nation has less than 10,000 or even 50,000 then we can squarely condemned the US has done terribly badly.
Yes, the infection and death rates in the USA are terrible and as the President, on paper, cannot pass the buck to anyone, but then on a deeper look I would not be so blind as to blame the President solely for the Covid19 numbers in this case.
Not that anyone here cares how I feel, since this topic is not about me…
I am sadly disappointed that someone who I was thinking about asking to cooperate with me on working out a better, a more-scientifically based, Ethics model, turned out to be a Trump supporter. And thus not ethically sensitive.
For if one is ethically sensitive one early on detects phoniness, inauthenticity; and is ‘turned off’ by it. [size=48]{In all history, has a President been more selfish, more corrupt?}[/size]
When an individual identifies strongly with his own moral self, his uniqueness, his honesty, his sincerity he becomes more genuine, more moral. And as this happens the moral person is also better in his social roles (such as for example, parent, teacher engineer), and is more systematic. For he is then more integrated as a personality. [By “systematic” here I mean: more self-disciplined, better at self-management; has more emotional control; is more at peace with himself; more adaptable to changing conditions, etc.] As Dr. R. S. Hartman once observed, the more you are genuinely yourself, the better you will be in your job, in your social role, and, in your thinking.
I was willing to discuss morality, you were the one who is too impulsive to bring in Trump into the discussion.
I am not American, thus no reason to support Trump politically like you as an anti-Trump due to very strong psychological and emotional basis resulting from the Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Since you brought in Trump out of nowhere, what I have done is offering my objective views and I did not insist Trump is perfect. Personally I do like his boorish and narcissistic behaviors.
To be objective I am insisting we appraise Trump, US President or any employee in the world objectively based on their overall performances. That is the professional, rational and ethical thing to do.
In the present state around the world, the moral competence of the average person is very low since the inherent moral ‘faculty’ is unfolding very slowly.
To increase the moral competence/quotient of the average person, if say 100 point at present to 150 or 200, it will take a few or more generations in the future. Meanwhile we can only talk and discuss, thus no need to be so triggered by what Trump is doing.
Thus your present concern re Trump and the emotional stress triggered will not be very effective and thus is self-defeating. It would be more effective for you to forget about Trump totally and be mindful towards peace for oneself. [Buddhism].
In the meantime we can only talk about it but whatever the neural wirings within the brain of the average person must change to effect the increase in moral quotient.
Please let us know. We would appreciate your response.
