What is Ethics? - a fresh, new approach

[thinkdr]

In the new paradigm offered by Dr. M. C. Katz, based on the prior work by Dr. R. S. Hartman, the term 'Ethics' is given a novel meaning, though fortuitously, it may turn out to resemble in the end much of what others mean by the word. Here is an exposition of the new paradigm for the theory of ethics. What follows is based upon the assumption that the reader has read and studied the posts by prof in the earlier threads about the HOV (the logical, existential Hierarchy of Value) and that s/he is acquainted with the formula I > E > S.

WHAT IS ETHICS?

To be ethical is to Intrinsically- value (to I-value) oneself and others. How can we tell when someone is I-valuing something? They focus; give it some of their attention, and come to identify with it. If they I-value a person they get involved with that person. They see qualities in the person that others, who aren't so close, don't see. To illustrate, it is the way many of us felt about our mother when we small children. That is an example of Intrinsic valuation.

Another example may be how a czarina, a Russian princess or queen, felt about her jewelry. Or how we relate to the Mona Lisa or to an original Van Gogh today. Whatever we regard as very special, as a priceless treasure, whatever we value as life itself (unless we are depressed and suicidal) is an application of I-value.

When people identify and bond with the following they become Intrinsic values: Liberty, Freedom, Integrity, Beauty, Truth, Goodness, Authenticity, Creativity, and so forth. Those are often I-valued. When someone Intrinsically values something they see, they may call it "a beauty" or speak of it as "beautiful." When a person I-values a sound, he or she will call it "music."
When I-valuing a person one may speak of that person as "a friend", or as "a partner" or perhaps as "beloved", or one may fall back on poetry, or pet names, or some private, intimate expression that only the two of them understand. Other concepts, which when identified with become I-value applications, are Love, Community, Spirituality, Veracity, Reality, Sharing, Happiness, Ecstasy, Joy, Intuition and Insight.

ARE THERE ETHICAL FALLACIES?

We previously explained that Ethics arises when we I-value persons. This is true by definition. False logic results in a fallacy. Faulty thinking in the field of ethics will be known as ethical fallacy. Now that Ethics has been defined, I shall present two Ethical Fallacies, expressed by Dr. William Kelleher, an ethicist and a political scientist, in the following quote. They are The Instrumental Fallacy and the Ideological Fallacy.

The Instrumental Fallacy
To use a person solely as a means to achieve some end entails a negative regard for that person. Using reduces a person to the value of a thing, an instrument. No matter how highly prized, a thing is always potential trash. Every new car will some day be junk. But a person, so long as he or she is a self-conscious, thinking, feeling human being ought never be regarded as useless trash." The formula depicting this situation is E > I, obviously a fallacy, since science has established that I > E.



When persons are I-valued they are receiving positive regard, and Ethics - by definition - tells us that individuals always deserve to be viewed in this light; it tells us that all persons always deserve positive regard. "The Ideological Fallacy: This is the false assumption that ideas are more important than persons are.

This is the way Dr. Kelleher explains it.

Whenever the idea of "gender," or of "race," or "rank" - all intellectual constructs, or conceptions - which have no actual physical existence - are used to separate members of the human community, and to enable some to claim superiority over others, this is a violation of Ethics. Why? Because it indicates a failure to I-value persons. To hold any of those "isms": racism, sexism, or rankism, is to commit The Ideological Fallacy. In symbols this situation is S > I, again, a fallacy.

In contrast, Dr. Kelleher has proposed two value axioms. The first is Instrumental Enhancement. What does this mean?

Instrumental Enhancement

"Providing a service to people that helps to improve the quality of their lives" would be an Instrumental Enhancement. He offers several examples: Public education when it values a student as a unique, intelligent, creative person with potential for growth and development; Sending someone who needs it - a person who has been convicted of a crime, or a drug addict -- into rehab is another example of Instrumental Enhancement; Medical treatment, including surgery, is meant to enhance the quality of life and provide a benefit. The second value axiom applied to Ethics is what we shall designate as:

Ideological Enhancement

This is an idea that tends to encourage giving positive regard to people. The idea of Human Rights - such as the right to an opportunity to earn a living; or the right to be free from the fear of detention just for expressing political views - the human rights concept is an Ideological Enhancement.

Comments? Questions?

[thinkdr]

Those who take the time to study and learn from the first selection listed below, THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS, will as a bonus gain a capacity to discern right choices from wrong choices.

I mention this because some people think that that's all there is to ethics. I disagree; I hold that Ethics, a useful body of knowledge, is so much more. After you read that essay, tell me what you think. Did you learn something about this field? What is your review of the effort?

[promethean75]

What is your review of the effort?

the buck stops here, partner. *chews toothpick while closely watching thinkdr's pistol hand*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism

[thinkdr]

Greetings, promethean75

Wiki tells us that "A noncognitivist denies the cognitivist claim that "moral judgments are capable of being objectively true, because they describe some feature of the world."

I side with the cognitivists it seems. For, as you noted when you read THE STRUCTURE booklet, I hold that the facts of Ethics are objectively true. And I justify that position there by giving good reasons to back it up.

Are you a noncognitivist? If so, can you give sound reasons to lend credence as to why that is true?


When I write that you are ethical if you are kind, considerate, responsible, truthful, accountable, authentic, and sincere - I am making a claim that describes an aspect of the world. I am saying that people use words that way. They call such an individual with those traits "ethical." What would you call such a person?

Maybe while watching my pistol - or my hand - you would benefit by studying this book on Moral Philosophy - not a self-help book, altho the title makes it sound like one - will help develop the capacity of discernment enabling one to be able to classify choices as "right" or as "wrong" morally speaking:

http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/HO ... SFULLY.pdf

Also, click on the first link below to learn of the STRICTURE of this new paradigm being offered for consideration as a "fresh new theory of ethics."

Comments? Questions? Improvements?

[promethean75]

Are you a noncognitivist? If so, can you give sound reasons to lend credence as to why that is true?

sure, you could call me an amateur noncognitivist, i guess. but i couldn't give you any reasons that aren't already stated in the article, accessible to anyone. as far as i know (and i've looked around quite a bit), noncognitivism and its branches - e.g., emotivism and quasi-realism - are as far as ethical theory can go.

one would think this is very dangerous to morality, but in fact it's quite innocuous. people don't behave in correspondence to some abstract entities out in the world called 'right' and 'wrong', in the first place (although they think they do). so, it's no loss to explain, as noncognitivism does, that there are no such entities. what guides people's behavior is a hedonistic calculus. people are natural consequentialists who want to avoid pain and displeasure and attain gratification and satisfaction. but none of this is done 'out of principle', for such things are just abstractions and have no real substance. man is really just a simplistic pavlonian dog that learns how to behave, and what 'principles' to attribute to such behavior - these things be culturally relative - through operant conditioning.

this history of the philosophy of ethics and morality had been an attempt of vanity to over-complicate this matter as a result of the embarrassment man has felt at the knowledge of his mechanistic simplicity. he doesn't want to believe this is it. he wants to enrich his morality and therefore his essence by transcending such simplicity and pretending as if there is some metaphysical depth to his being. but the truth is, he isn't even shallow. well okay sure, he's shallow... i guess we can give him that much, at least.

[thinkdr]

Are you a noncognitivist? If so, can you give sound reasons to lend credence as to why that is true?

sure, you could call me an amateur noncognitivist,... noncognitivism and its branches - e.g., emotivism and quasi-realism - are as far as ethical theory can go.

one would think this is very dangerous to morality, but in fact it's quite innocuous.... what guides people's behavior is [they] want to avoid pain and displeasure and attain gratification and satisfaction. but ... man is really just a ... pavlonian dog that learns how to behave, and what 'principles' to attribute to such behavior... through operant conditioning.

... ethics and morality had been an attempt . to over-complicate this matter as a result of the embarrassment man has felt .... he wants to enrich his morality.

Yes, embarrasment, along with shame, disgust, guil, compassion, self-discipline, joy, approval, and gratitude are some of the moral emotions. Emotions are to beliefs as a barometer is to the weather. The emotions usually are a readout of the underlying beliefs, our conceptions. If our values are distorted, so will be our priorities - and these guide our life. Cognitions matter. Values matter. When you hear in your mind the sounds of "Ollie's Street," you call it "music"; that is how you value it. Someone else, valuing those sounds differently, would call them "noise."

Since you are a musician, and an original composer, I would respect your views regarding the sounds more than some other people's judgment. You Intrinsically-value those sounds. When you do the same toward yourself as well as others, you are ethical. Yes, as Al Bandura has explained in his latest book, there can be "moral disengagement -enabled by any one of the six mechanisms he lists, or a combination of those.

My approach, in the first linked-essay below, THE STRUCTURE, is to show that the benefits exceed the costs if one will commit oneself to living a moral life, as measured by the comprehension of the Moral Principles offered in the essay.

It's funny you should mention "operant conditioning." I actually knew Fred (B.F.) Skinner, the man who did more work in this area than anyone else. He showed me around his lab at William James Hall on the campus of Harvard University. He gave me permission to reproduce one of his papers in an anthology I published.
It is a fact that if an individual becomes aware that he is being conditioned he can defy the conditioning; he can act autonomously ... much as you do when you spontaneously compose some original jazz, listening to your own beat.

Yes, the STRUCTURE OF ETHICS essay encourages people to, as you say, "enrich their morality." Does it help accomplish this goal? Should it be taught to kids in their own words?

Your review of it would help make progress toward attaining a more-ethical world.

I welcome your comments, Readers. This is a Philosophy Forum. Let's do some. Let's get closer to formalizing the topics, thus getting the knowledge to be more reliable, more scientific. Do you agree with M. Shermer that science makes us better people? {See reference to him in the first link below.}

[promethean75]

I actually knew Fred (B.F.) Skinner

holy shit... are you serious?

[thinkdr]

I actually knew Fred (B.F.) Skinner

holy shit... are you serious?

Yes, quite serious.

He was a very mild-mannered, unassuming guy, born in Pennsylvania.

In his lab he showed me the cages containing white pigeons. One of the pigeons he was training to play a piano keyboard.


[ A large application (of the 'schedules of reinforcement' Dr. Skinner created) has been made by the designers of slot-machines, which are installed in casinos and game rooms. The schedules of pay-offs get the player to keep putting in cash long after he would have given up pushing the button, would have taken whatever funds he still has, and would have left the casino or mart.]

One gets the impression that to Fred "education" was merely "instruction."

I admit, though, that I used his positive reinforcement idea to make my four-year-old kid sister a better person. When she did something nice, or behaved like an optimist, I would, at times, soon offer her a tasty dried-apricot. She ate it up ! She beamed a big smile! Today, of all her siblings she considers me her favorite. Later, when she grew up, she went on to become an elementary-school teacher. She thus acquired skills which aided her, once she became a mother, in doing a great job in raising her three kids. Her son, since then, has had three kids of his own. All will make a great contribution; all will bring us closer to living in an Ethical world.

As you know, like a knife can be used to cut a tomato or cut a person, technology - uch as, for instance, Fred Skinner's systematic models for Psychology - can be misused. It can be used for good; or used for bad purposes. That is why it is so important for everyone to know their Ethics and/or to live ethically, thus setting a good example.

For everyone, though, let's spread the word that morality is in our best-interest
To learn about its meaning and its structure see Chapter Three of the first selection listed below in the signature: click on THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS.

Then discuss the topic across the dinner table, as well as with everyone you meet. If they agree that "Morality is in our best-interest"
then proceed to teach them the implications of that as you now - having read up on it - understand them.

[thinkdr]

Anthropologists today find and record, in most every culture, examples of compassion, fairness, generosity. and actions that implement the Golden Rule.

Cooperation, normally the ethical way to proceed, is not ethical if it is accompanied by some exploiting of outgroups seen as threats. In the recent past outgroups considered as not worthy of full moral consideration have been homosexuals and those called “strangers.”

Moral Psychologists of late, along with Evolutionary Biologists and Brain Neurologists, speak of we humans as possessing a Moral Sense. This is closely akin to what those Philosophers known as Intuitionists were arguing for back as the early 1600s and forward up to the present day. A particular set of emotions are triggered by our moral sense: compassion, gratitude, loyalty, disgust, shame, and guilt.

I agree with the Socratic view that evil is most always performed out of ignorance, but I would also add, as a source of evil behavior, madness due to brain damage.

Aristotle did describe a condition in which a person may recognize that something is morally right, and may even want to do what is right, but nonetheless is lured away from such by a stronger temptation. He called it “weakness of the will.” Here we get into questions of motivation. R. S. Hartman taught that there are three basic kinds of norms: (S) formal norms: ...Some x R y.
(E) facultative norms: ...Some people live morally.
(II) obligatory norms. ...I will live morally.

Thus an example of an Obligatory Norm might be: “I want to live morally, and I intend to do so!!! I mean it. I mean it intensely. I’ll strive for this; I’m making it my goal.”

Choosing such an Obligatory Norm is a motivating procedure which prepares one for the time when s/he judges something as ‘morally wrong’; it then will trigger a pre-built-in motivational force to avoid that action or situation, keeping one from indulging in it or associating with it.

Your views on this approach to Ethics theory?
Comments? Questions?

[thinkdr]

Even if we believed that what guides people’s behavior is that they merely want to avoid pain and displeasure, and attain pleasure, satisfaction and gratification, we would still benefit from knowing how to perceive when people are being ethical and when they are being unethical; and knowing the positive gains that comes to one when he or she is ethical.

To learn this valuable knowledge, see the listings in the signature below, especially the first one, THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS.

Also, it would help if someone who tosses out words such as: pleasure, satisfaction and gratification, would defined those words telling us how they differ from one another, and how they are the same.

[thinkdr]

The question of "why should I be moral? Which is clarified in the works cited below – to which links are offered in the signature –is a question that should be discussed at every dinner table. The efficacy of the argument would be based on some “one-liners" that can be remembered easily by the public.

Ask people you meet: Isn’t it true that morality is in our best-interest? (By “morality” is meant: becoming the best that a human being can be and become; a person being true to himself or herself; living by principle, having standards.)
If you agree, then the question arises: What are we doing to make this a more moral society?

Perhaps, as a philosopher once suggested, all that it would take for human fulfillment is to harmonize that which is already naturally good.
That itself is a topic for air-time, and for dinner-time, conversation.

How do you feel about all this?
Can you suggest some good one-liners relevant to Ethics?
.

[Ecmandu]

The question of "why should I be moral? Which is clarified in the works cited below – to which links are offered in the signature –is a question that should be discussed at every dinner table. The efficacy of the argument would be based on some “one-liners" that can be remembered easily by the public.

Ask people you meet: Isn’t it true that morality is in our best-interest? (By “morality” is meant: becoming the best that a human being can be and become; a person being true to himself or herself; living by principle, having standards.)
If you agree, then the question arises: What are we doing to make this a more moral society?

Perhaps, as a philosopher once suggested, all that it would take for human fulfillment is to harmonize that which is already naturally good.
That itself is a topic for air-time, and for dinner-time, conversation.

How do you feel about all this?
Can you suggest some good one-liners relevant to Ethics?
.

You want a one liner?

Here's my one liner:

Some of the best ethics discussions in the world are happening on this board and none of them are in your threads.

[thinkdr]

Hi, Ecmandu

Though all my friends would say, "Don't bother with that boor," I believe I may learn something of value, so I have a question for you:

Which threads, and more-specifically, which posts contain these ethics discussions to which you allude; and by which criteria do you judge them "the best" ethics discussions?

If you provide us with criteria backed up by logic and reason I will study these ethics discussions to which you refer us, and thus I may, at last, get educated.

Waiting to hear from you....

[thinkdr]

Hey everyone:

Did you know that the Ultimate Goal of Ethics, according to Dr. M. C. Katz, is a Quality Life for all.

What is "a Quality Life"?

It is having a good character and having well-being. What is "well-being"?

It’s a life rich in meaning, one full of ‘mountain-top’ experiences and warm memories. It is quality time with those we love. It includes leisure to pursue our hobbies and freely-chosen projects. It's getting into 'the flow', having some accomplishment to your credit, attaining some happiness.

A more-detailed explanation of the concept "well-being," as understood by Dr. Martin Seligman, is given THE STRUCTURE booklet. Here is a link to it:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf

Dr. Katz tells us that Ethics entails creating value in human relationships.

What do you think? I'd like to hear your views.

[thinkdr]

.


.Do you believe the ethical theory proposed in this thread is better than previous ethical theories?


And if not, why not?

As you know, it has an answer for the issue of gun safety. It indicates we go in the direction of nonviolence. Thus it has a response to the issue of waging war. It indicates we conscientiously object to participating in such. It defines "war" as "organized mass murder in the name of a fine and noble cause," causes such as "for Democracy," or "to end terrorism," etc. It holds that we arrange to live in a world without war.

It also has a response to the issue of abortion. It says that nowadays, and into the future, due to advanced methods of birth control, and due also to the realism of virtual reality devoted to porn, abortion is becoming increasingly unnecessary - and therefore no longer an issue.
It has implications, as well, for other issues of Applied Ethics.

It argues that automation tends to create more jobs; and it enourages society both to retrain people at no cost to the job-seeker (getting a small stipend while being retrained) for higher-tech work that society currently requires, as well as to recruit people for jobs that are urgently needed, such as teaching and nursing.

Also the book on THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS quotes Peter Singer on a resolution to some other moral dilemmas that he well-argued for in his book, HOW ARE WE TO LIVE? The book also has as chapter on Business Ethics, and lists Best places to work, and why they are.

So what is your opinion? Is this theory better than alternative ethical theories


.

[Ecmandu]

Your making it SO complicated that it's not even an ethics theory.

Let's simplify cosmic ethics:

No being wants their consent violated without it being their own terms.

There are not many ways to accomplish this.

-Philosophic zombie universes
-Marionette universes
- hallucinating reality from eternal forms
- hyper dimensional mirror realities

Everything else is a consent violating formulation.

Thus... ultimately anti ethical

Now, there are ways to be relatively ethical absent these solutions, but not and never absolute

[thinkdr]

Your making it SO complicated that it's not even an ethics theory.

According to Webster’s II Dictionary, a definition of “ethics” is this: “a system of moral values that guides conduct.” A system of ethics deals with questions such as “What is the opposite of being ethical?” “How shall I live?” “What is a good life?” "Do I have any obligations?"

Readers, as you look at page 2, The Table of Contents of the booklet, THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS, does that seem complicated to you?
[See the first link below.]

To cover the requirements of the above definition, wouldn't some detailed explications and explorations be a necessity - in order to fulfill the description and exposition of the concept. The booklet proceeds by deconstructing and then reconstructing a couple of key terms, namely, "ethics," and "morality."

Some disruption occurs ...to use a term from business.

A new paradigm is revolutionary and usually always meets with strong criticism from those who suffer from "future shock." The introduction of a new system is highly controversial. I'm confident you can supply examples.

[Ecmandu]

What I was trying to say, and apologies for being rude. If you can't explain it to a 5 year old in the span of perhaps even a paragraph or less, it's not going to be useful for humans.

[thinkdr]

What I was trying to say, and apologies for being rude. If you can't explain it to a 5 year old in the span of perhaps even a paragraph or less, it's not going to be useful for humans.

Greetings, Ecmandu

Apology accepted!

Yes, I can go along with what you were trying to say ... though it does reveal your current view of humans.

It's a good suggestion!
Let's ask everyone here: How would you explain Ethics to a 5-year-old in the span of a paragraph or two?

Any ideas

.

[Karpel Tunnel]

What I was trying to say, and apologies for being rude. If you can't explain it to a 5 year old in the span of perhaps even a paragraph or less, it's not going to be useful for humans.

Greetings, Ecmandu

Apology accepted!

Yes, I can go along with what you were trying to say ... though it does reveal your current view of humans.

It's a good suggestion!
Let's ask everyone here: How would you explain Ethics to a 5-year-old in the span of a paragraph or two?

Any ideas

.

Children as young as four can begin to see things from other people's perspectives. I am not sure I would explain ethics to a five year old - or to anyone for that matter - but I would work in questions related to how other people might feel about X - 'How do you think Timmy felt when you pushed him off the pier?' and then statements about my own perspective and then also the five year olds. Role modeling perspective insights and shifts, and also demonstrating my skills (hopefully) at describing the five year olds and how I take that into account in relation to him or her. Ethical rules and guidelines, in a sense, presume we cannot work with empathy and perception, that we have to have rules. I think it actually honors the integrity of the child to enhance the skill set, so to speak, and also to share with and confront them with the inner experiences you have. Rather than coming up with 10 commandments, say, or even much subtler versions.

[Karpel Tunnel]

.


.Do you believe the ethical theory proposed in this thread is better than previous ethical theories?


And if not, why not?

As you know, it has an answer for the issue of gun safety. It indicates we go in the direction of nonviolence. Thus it has a response to the issue of waging war. It indicates we conscientiously object to participating in such. It defines "war" as "organized mass murder in the name of a fine and noble cause," causes such as "for Democracy," or "to end terrorism," etc. It holds that we arrange to live in a world without war.

It also has a response to the issue of abortion. It says that nowadays, and into the future, due to advanced methods of birth control, and due also to the realism of virtual reality devoted to porn, abortion is becoming increasingly unnecessary - and therefore no longer an issue.
It has implications, as well, for other issues of Applied Ethics.

It argues that automation tends to create more jobs; and it enourages society both to retrain people at no cost to the job-seeker (getting a small stipend while being retrained) for higher-tech work that society currently requires, as well as to recruit people for jobs that are urgently needed, such as teaching and nursing.

Also the book on THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS quotes Peter Singer on a resolution to some other moral dilemmas that he well-argued for in his book, HOW ARE WE TO LIVE? The book also has as chapter on Business Ethics, and lists Best places to work, and why they are.

So what is your opinion? Is this theory better than alternative ethical theories


.

What you write above sounds less like an ethical theory, but rather predictions that technology will make us get along in various ways or eliminate troubling conflicting goods (as old iambiguous might phrase it). I realize you do have a whole system via links, but I just wanted to point out that those portions of this post are not really ethical positions or systems. I think some of these predictions are not correct, but that's a different sort of issue from your final question.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Instrumental Enhancement

"Providing a service to people that helps to improve the quality of their lives" would be an Instrumental Enhancement. He offers several examples: Public education when it values a student as a unique, intelligent, creative person with potential for growth and development; Sending someone who needs it - a person who has been convicted of a crime, or a drug addict -- into rehab is another example of Instrumental Enhancement; Medical treatment, including surgery, is meant to enhance the quality of life and provide a benefit. The second value axiom applied to Ethics is what we shall designate as:

Ideological Enhancement

This is an idea that tends to encourage giving positive regard to people. The idea of Human Rights - such as the right to an opportunity to earn a living; or the right to be free from the fear of detention just for expressing political views - the human rights concept is an Ideological Enhancement.

Comments? Questions?

I haven't seen the phrases before with Enhancement, but I think this is more or less a liberal view of ethics. What do you think is unique about his or your views?

[ExtraCoronas]

It’s certainly true that ethics involves the ability to value something other than oneself, to relate to it in its own terms plus your own terms in that relating. Also that ethics involves “selfishness”. You don’t do things because you’re selfish, you’re selfish because you... do things.

But those are just aspects. Ethics is largely about right and wrong which means true and false. What kind of ice cream you like isn’t an ethical question. If your issue can be boiled down to an “opinion” then it’s not an ethical issue. Ethics comes from reason, which is the ability to and desire to engage this thing called reality.

[thinkdr]

What do you think is unique about his or your views?

Given that there are no new ideas under the Sun, I suggest that you read the book - the first one mentioned in the links below in the signature, and then judge for yourself whether there is anything "unique."

I would venture that the way I define the concept "morality" is rather unique, but I may be wrong.

[Karpel Tunnel]

What do you think is unique about his or your views?

Given that there are no new ideas under the Sun, I suggest that you read the book - the first one mentioned in the links below in the signature, and then judge for yourself whether there is anything "unique."

I would venture that the way I define the concept "morality" is rather unique, but I may be wrong.

If you feel like summarizing what you consider unique, I can read that and respond to that. I like reading physical books, where I turn the pages. What's unique about how you define the concept morality?