Hardcore Ethics

[thinkdr]

Formal Axiology, among many other functions, serves as the meta-ethics for the Unified Theory of Ethics.

Although this is an over-simplified explanation of Formal Axiology, it may prove helpful: click on this link, safe to open –
https://www.cleardirection.com/docs/formalaxiology.asp

Also see this account simplified for the layperson: https://valueinsights.com/axiology/the- ... -axiology/

And check out this insightful discussion HERE: https://valueinsights.com/axiology/meas ... tangibles/

To see the original text, by the philosopher who inspired it all, read this book: Robert S. Hartman – The Structure of Value.(1967).
Ask your local library to get it for you from the nearest university.


Your impressions, reflections, queries?

[thinkdr]

It would be interesting to learn whether any one of you followed up on the resources listed in the previous post -- and if so, did you, as a result get to Know Thyself better? Did you learn something from your studies of value theory? Did you take a values inventory? Are you now more aware of your capacities, value-insight scores, etc.?

Let's hear some feedback !

Okay?

[thinkdr]

Most branches of Philosophy are about conceptual analysis and other thought processes, about the search for truth, about extracting the wisdom from a scenario or piece of writing, about the joy of exercising one’s mind, about offering a new fresh perspective. One branch, however, is exceptional

Ethics is not only about all of the above but it also has a practical side; it is meant to be applied to daily life, to set a shining example of ethical living. For if people are going to learn to be more-ethical it is by seeing a role-model or example. …since that speaks “louder than words.” Ethics is oriented toward practice as well as it is toward theory.

That is why I was thrilled to discover a non-profit organization, headquartered in Silicon Valley = San Jose to be specific – which is putting Ethics and human development into practice. It has marvelous values and it translates them into policies and activities. It does not merely think deeply about values such as democracy and sustainability; it engages in advocacy; it works out the agenda, the practice – which is an integral part of Ethics. It spells out “how to get from here to there.” Most ethical theories fail in that respect. This website exemplifies hardcore ethics!

Visit http://www.humanagenda.net/policy-agenda

And see especially the first paragraph here to learn the core values guiding the moral applications: http://www.humanagenda.net/claro

What do you think?
Is this ethics in action? Does it solve problems? Is it worth it? Could it contribute to making progress?

[thinkdr]

Well worth watching!!!

When Ethics is applied to Economics we get this significant knowledge (in a brief talk) that a businessman - who also is a pretty-good teacher of Economics – provides for us. Be sure to view this insightful video in order to gain the new knowledge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th3KE_H27bs

It gives a capitalist’s perspective on why Neo-liberalism is a faulty ideology based on unsound ideas; and we are informed as to what we can do to counteract such misleading doctrines.

We can choose to fix the prevailing economic arrangements that aren’t working well. We can consciously choose to make things better, and this capitalist explains clearly how.

The capitalist giving the Ted Talk is named Nick Hanauer, and, incidentally, he is a billionaire. {Again, here is that link:}
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th3KE_H27bs


Please tell us what you thought of this presentation. Did you note how it applied concepts from Ethics? Did you detect the ethical principles and ideals that served as its basic foundation? Is Nick H. making workable proposals? Would those proposals he makes be more-properly be labeled 'Reforms' or 'as 'Radical changes' ...or neither?
What are your views as to what would result if Ethics theory were applied to Economics?

[promethean75]

Great video, doc!

A capitalist comes clean. This is like a black swan event. I can hardly believe my ears.

[thinkdr]

Great video, doc!
A capitalist comes clean. This is like a black swan event. I can hardly believe my ears.

LOL. Thanks for some positive reinforcement !!

And I'm glad you enjoyed it.


Did anyone else view that "black swan"? What were your impressions?

[thinkdr]

In case you never got around to viewing the TED Talk on You Tube, here are some of the points made by Nick Hanauer, the successful businessman.

Innovation is a process which will solve human problems. ...innovation plus cooperation results in increasing prosperity for all.

An effective business is not a jungle; it's a garden: a garden of cooperation.

Inclusion is the answer. Inclusive cooperating teams will create economic growth and prosperity. This is true for competition among corporations and even among nations.

Being rapacious means being psychopathic; greed is NOT good !!

Readers: Do you agree that his approach to business and to economics is
applied Ethics? From your understanding of the new paradigm, Ethics, can it absorb within itself everything that Nick is teaching about Economics? I believe
it can, but I'd like to hear from you.

[thinkdr]

.
THIS IS A SURVEY:
Do you hold that ethics is learned:

A. Only at “your mother’s knee,” that is, at home when you are young

B. In a classroom when one is either a senior in high-school and/or it can be taught to a college student

C. Both of the above A and B

D. Neither A nor B, because it is genetic

E. All of the above

F. None of the above.

Please let us know how you vote in this survey.
Which option do you choose?

[thinkdr]

.
Well, let's forget about the survey. No one wants to vote, it seems.

One bright young philosopher, writing at a forum, argues that “morality is about removing trolley problems from every-day life for as many people as possible. He claims that Ethics is a study that removes having to choose – as we go about our daily lives - between the well-being of you-versus-other-individuals.
It’s us vs. them!
But then he clarifies his position when he writes: "Due to food shortages people are resorting to violence. Therefore, in order to decrease violence, it is morally right to ensure an increase in food supply/production." He offers statistics, and a bell-curve diagram, to back up his claim.

Do you agree that that’s all there is to ethics-theory

Alternatively, another claim the young man made, is that ethics is only concerned with negotiating what is “harm” and how to minimize it?

Are his efforts at reductionism credible? Can you accept that these are the only concerns of a good Ethics theory?

If not, why not?

[Karpel Tunnel]

In case you never got around to viewing the TED Talk on You Tube, here are some of the points made by Nick Hanauer, the successful businessman.

Innovation is a process which will solve human problems. ...innovation plus cooperation results in increasing prosperity for all.

An effective business is not a jungle; it's a garden: a garden of cooperation.

Inclusion is the answer. Inclusive cooperating teams will create economic growth and prosperity. This is true for competition among corporations and even among nations.

Being rapacious means being psychopathic; greed is NOT good !!

Readers: Do you agree that his approach to business and to economics is
applied Ethics? From your understanding of the new paradigm, Ethics, can it absorb within itself everything that Nick is teaching about Economics? I believe
it can, but I'd like to hear from you.

One tricky area is deciding what is greed. Also earlier in the quote 'effective' is not defined, here at least. Effective at what. Unfortunately greedy companies are quite effective at some things.

(it's tangential but I dislike the metaphors. Gardens are good because they are cooperative, jungles are bad because they are not. In a garden one could argue that the home owner/gardener is deciding what life is valuable using purely selfish criteria. A jungle, while obviously having a lot of competetion, also has a lot of symbiosis. There is some of this in a garden of course, but always related to the desire of the king. A jungle has hierarchies but also horizontal relationships. Anyway I could go far along on my issues with this metaphor, but it really does relate to all sorts of fallacies about civilization vs. nature, ideas of nature as primarily competitive and the blind spot of humanism as a kind of speciesism, all being ironic in context)

we end on this 'being rapacious is psychopathic'

but that's more or less cheating. You have a pejorative word 'rapacious' being defined by another pejorative term psychopathic.

Right off that simply alienates anyone who thinks competition is or can be good and also thinks that competition need not be rapacious. the whole quote seems to assume that cooperation and competition are mutually exclusive. Perhaps he tried to demonstrate this elsewhere.

I guess my take on it is that it is propaganda and not really much of an argument.

and hey I am critical of corporations and tend to think of them as regions of fascism as they are currently protected and conceived under the law, with rights and reduced responsibilities compared to how they were first conceived.

The trick is to show, to my mind how competition, desire and cooperation come to some balance.

[thinkdr]

Innovation is a process which will solve human problems. ...innovation plus cooperation results in increasing prosperity for all.

An effective business is .. a garden of cooperation....Inclusion is the answer....cooperating teams will create economic growth and prosperity ..
greed is NOT good !!

One tricky area is deciding what is greed. Also earlier in the quote 'effective' is not defined, here at least. ...Unfortunately greedy companies are quite effective at some things.
we end on this 'being rapacious is psychopathic' but that's more or less cheating. You have a pejorative word 'rapacious' being defined by another pejorative term psychopathic.

Right off that simply alienates anyone who thinks competition is or can be good and also thinks that competition need not be rapacious. the whole quote seems to assume that cooperation and competition are mutually exclusive.

and hey I am critical of corporations and tend to think of them as regions of fascism as they are currently protected and conceived under the law, with rights and reduced responsibilities compared to how they were first conceived.

The trick is to show, to my mind how competition, desire and cooperation come to some balance.

Hi, Karpel

Nice to hear from you again! Thank you for responding, and for keeping the dialogue going. I shall take up your points one at a time.

Greed is an obsessive-compulsive neurosis; this neurosis is usually seen when persons collects old magazines, or newspapers, and when you enter their room you note that these papers are piled right up to the ceiling. In the case of greed the urge is to collect MONEY.
:wink: [How can a person be expected to scrape by on only one-hundred-million?! He has to become a billionaire!]

When I use the word "effective" I mean by it: beneficial to enhancing quality-of-life, applying Intrinsic valuation to the situation.
Greedy individuals and companies are quite efficient at some things. {In my writings I have made this distinction between the concepts "efficient" and "effective." The former is Extrinsic value, while the lattter is Intrinsic value. I-value is worth uncountably-more than E-value. (This is another-- a more academic - way of saying that love is more valuable than savoir-faire.)

Yes, I believe Nick Hanauer intended those words (rapaciousness is pathology) to be perjorative. It was not so much a definition as it was an attribution. He was describing greed as sociopathic, and used the word 'psychopathic' instead. The point is he was emotional about other businessmen having that neurosis called 'greed.' He feels it gives business a bad name.

Nowhere in his ten-minute talk did he give (me, at least) the impression he is against competition.

In the booklet, THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS, the first link in the signature below, the final pages are devoted to the topic: competition. It discusses contests, bees, and rivalry of various sorts. It distinguishes ruthless rivalry from healthy competition, and gives an example, in the form of a story, of a healthy competition. That is one where everyone wins.

It recommends that we innovate new contests which, as a result of such competition, the world is better off afterwards.

And I am all for getting into balance, as a glance at my writings would show.


Comments? Questions? Analysis? Discussion?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Greed is an obsessive-compulsive neurosis; this neurosis is usually seen when persons collects old magazines, or newspapers, and when you enter their room you note that these papers are piled right up to the ceiling. In the case of greed the urge is to collect MONEY.
[How can a person be expected to scrape by on only one-hundred-million?! He has to become a billionaire!]

I'm with you here, however when we look out at society competition and greed and cooperation can mix be separate, overlap.

When I use the word "effective" I mean by it: beneficial to enhancing quality-of-life, applying Intrinsic valuation to the situation.
Greedy individuals and companies are quite efficient at some things. {In my writings I have made this distinction between the concepts "efficient" and "effective." The former is Extrinsic value, while the lattter is Intrinsic value. I-value is worth uncountably-more than E-value. (This is another-- a more academic - way of saying that love is more valuable than savoir-faire.)

Efficient usually means getting things done with low expense, quickly, low resource use. Effective usually means how much you can count on it working. A bulldozer is extremely effective at getting through a doorway, but not so efficient.

A greedy company can generally point at their products and services. Some greedy companies even make very good products and employ a bunch of people.

Yes, I believe Nick Hanauer intended those words (rapaciousness is pathology) to be perjorative. It was not so much a definition as it was an attribution. He was describing greed as sociopathic, and used the word 'psychopathic' instead. The point is he was emotional about other businessmen having that neurosis called 'greed.' He feels it gives business a bad name.

Sure.

Nowhere in his ten-minute talk did he give (me, at least) the impression he is against competition.

OK but then this seems implicit when greed is being defined as opposed to cooperation. Though I did reread the quote and it seems like he is viewing competition positively. Which means he is not seeing them as mutually exclusive. Good.

But we need to get under the generalities. One can be greedy and also cooperate. In fact a corporation pretty much has to. With its suppliers, customers, employees, the state and so on. We might argue that there is coercion or imbalance in what they are calling cooperation.

How do we distinguish between cooperation that is fair and not. And even with greedy people, some of them actually can be quite fair. This may fit their business model. They may think it works. Or works in many areas of their corporation.

IN a sense I am saying that it seems to me there is a category error, or several, in what you quoted.

Even greed and cooperation are not mutually exclusive. In fact to be effectively greedy you have to cooperate with people, some of them perhaps greedy.

We have a compulsion (Greed)

and we have a pattern of interaction (Cooperation).

They aren't opposed. They are in different categories.

And then there will be a strong subjective element in what different people consider the drive of a CEO or shareholder.

[thinkdr]

Greetings, Karpal

I distinguish cooperation from mere teamwork. In Ethics, I use "cooperation" as meaning a "spirit of intentional pitching in to accomplish a noble cause (or ideal end in view.)" The ones cooperating are to be doing it mindfully, and voluntarily, and with strong motivation to reach that ethical goal.
While making money is a fine goal, those doing it are to be conscious that they want to avoid getting greedy! They want to keep on being generous, living a relatively-simple life, environmentally-friendly, and in harmony (at least with) the other members of their species.

What did you think of that story about the Chinese Restaurant owners that you found in that section 'on competition, located near the end of the Structure of Ethics document?

[thinkdr]

ON THE OBJECTIVITY OF MORALITY

According to the Unified Theory of Ethics - which was inspired originally by Robert S. Hartman, and carried further by M. C. Katz - the more an individual complies with the highest ideals he or she can imagine, the more moral he or she is.

These highest ideals are moral principles. And the more moral principles to which an individual adheres, lives by, the more moral that individual is.
The compliance can be measured by others. So too can the number of principles to which one is committed be measured. What can be scientifically measured by Moral Psychologists is objective.
Moral Psychology is the experimental branch of Ethics.

[Those psychologists may not want to admit they are ethicists, but that's how I regard them. They probably want to consider themselves psychologists since currently more prestige is associated with that designation.]

The first two paragraphs above tell us how "morality" is defined in the Unified Theory of Ethics, and perhaps that is how best morality is to be understood.
Since the above logical argument is sound, the case is made: "Morality" can be objective.
For further details, see M. Katz - Basic Ethics: a systematic approach.
A safe-to-open link to it is found in the listing below in the signature.


Critics may object: “But objectivity means independence from opinion. Highest ideals or moral principles are matters of opinion, and so subjective.”
Explain to the critic that they are subjective and objective at the same time: it is an objective fact that they are deduced from the system of ethics being offered in THE STRUCTURE of ETHICS booklet. They naturally follow from the framework that was constructed to account for the ethical data, and for the situations in which an ethical decision had to be made.
"Morality" is a term in a system, a well-defined term; it is an integral part of the structure - just as your brai is a part of the organism that is you.

For details, see THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS (2019) which is the first listing in the references given below.
A list of some of the moral principles is found on pp. 27-28 of the essay. These are suggested guidelines for living an Ethical life; they are not rules. Other principles, not there listed, may also be derived from the proposed structure.

[In a technical system that is posited opinion is kept to a minimum. Furrthermore, I agree with those who understand that "objectivity" is inter-subjective consensus. Let's now discuss the concept “objectivity” in general.

A ’truth’ is true because everybody holds the same opinion about it. That's the foundation of scientific "truth." When scientists agree on come conclusion of research it acquires the status of “fact.”
Anything believed to be a fact is believed by a human being. Facts are objective. Human beings are subjective. If "objectivity“ has any meaning, it is a consensus held by subjective creatures.

It is possible thus to be objective and subjective at the same time. Let's not engage extensively in black-or-white thinking, (or as it is called in Formal Axiology circles: dys-systemic thinking.) This kind of confused thinking dogmatically insists that it has to be one or the other - but not both.

Polanyi did a fine job in one of his books arguing that science is permeated with opinion and subjectivity. It is seen in the choice by a scientist as to what field he or she will do their research: it is a personal value decision.
And Habermas has also written extensively on the intersubjectivity of factual beliefs, the consensus idea.

If you tell me that due to an avalanche a rock fell right in front of you, beyond your control, it is good manners for me to accept your report, and you expect me to accept it - despite your biases and personal perspectives. We may believe it, take it to be objective fact. We come to this situation with the prior belief that “rocks fall.”

What say you? Comments? Discussion?

[MagsJ]

.
THIS IS A SURVEY:
Do you hold that ethics is learned:

A. Only at “your mother’s knee,” that is, at home when you are young

B. In a classroom when one is either a senior in high-school and/or it can be taught to a college student

C. Both of the above A and B

D. Neither A nor B, because it is genetic

E. All of the above

F. None of the above.

Please let us know how you vote in this survey.
Which option do you choose?

I would say E. as, as we can be taught the Ethical at home and/or in Educational Establishments, ethics is instinctual, but it may not be for some whom lead unethical lives under the radar and outside of the law.

[thinkdr]

.
THIS IS A SURVEY:
Do you hold that ethics is learned:

A. Only at “your mother’s knee,” that is, at home when you are young

B. In a classroom when one is either a senior in high-school and/or it can be taught to a college student

C. Both of the above A and B

D. Neither A nor B, because it is genetic

E. All of the above

F. None of the above.

Please let us know how you vote in this survey.
Which option do you choose?

I would say E. as, as we can be taught the Ethical at home and/or in Educational Establishments, ethics is instinctual, but it may not be for some whom lead unethical lives under the radar and outside of the law.

Thank you, MagsJ, for taking part in the survey.

And thank you for your intelligent response.


Prof. Abraham Maslow, as a result of his research, claimed that human beings do not have instincts; he did grant though that they have some 'instinctoid' traits.

My inductive observation of humans is that they all have in common the fact that they suffer. They all, at one time or another in their lives, suffer.

Since the Unified Theory of Ethics can help people cope with this, it is worthwhile studying Ethics. Learning Ethics has many benefits some of which are mentioned in the references to which links are offered below.


One more question: Do you think morality is (in part) objective? And if not, why not?

[surreptitious75]

Abraham Maslow as a result of his research claimed that human beings do not have instincts

I would define instinct as something automatic that is not learned or acquired but is natural or hard wired
There are instincts one has from birth that one was born with because it was necessary to just know them

The instinct to eat when one is hungry / the instinct to drink when one is thirsty
The instinct to be warm when one is cold / the instinct to sleep when one is tired

These instincts cannot be ignored because the inevitable consequence of that would be death

Food and water and heat and sleep can only be denied for so long and this is probably while they are instincts
Because having to learn them would take time and from an evolutionary perspective that could be rather fatal

And as it is evolution then it is not exclusive to humans but is probably universal across the entire animal kingdom

[thinkdr]

Abraham Maslow as a result of his research claimed that human beings do not have instincts

I would define instinct as something automatic that is not learned or acquired but is natural or hard wired
There are instincts one has from birth that one was born with because it was necessary to just know them

The instinct to eat when one is hungry / the instinct to drink when one is thirsty
The instinct to be warm when one is cold / the instinct to sleep when one is tired

These instincts cannot be ignored because the inevitable consequence of that would be death

Food and water and heat and sleep can only be denied for so long and this is probably while they are instincts
Because having to learn them would take time and from an evolutionary perspective that could be rather fatal

And as it is evolution then it is not exclusive to humans but is probably universal across the entire animal kingdom

Greetings, surreptitious75

You have some good ideas. Thanks for a stimulating contribution to the discussion. Yes, I'll agree that we are hard-wired to look out for our own benefit. Maslow placed the Survival Needs at the very base of his Hierarchy of Human Needs model.

Bees and ants have instincts; they can't help doing what they're doing. Wouldn't you say, though, that the fact that an individual human can willfully 'fast unto death' is evidence that eating and/or drinking are not instincts. They are strong needs, but that behavior is not instinctual, as is the hive building activity of the worker bee.

[thinkdr]

Here are some conclusions that one could infer from a study of the Unified Theory of Ethics:

STAY IN ETHICAL BALANCE

To stay in balance:

Give equal attention to empathy and compassion;
to getting moral things done in a moral way;
to thinking deeply about relevant matters.

The relevant matters are those of top priority. The Theory explains how to know which those are.




Based upon your analysis, all things considered, do you believe that this Unified UnifiedTheory is a better theory of ethics than others with which you are acquainted?

Comments? Questions?

[surreptitious75]

Would not you say though that the fact that an individual human can willfully fast unto death is evidence that eating and / or drinking are not instincts
They are strong needs but that behavior is not instinctual as is the hive building activity of the worker bee

Fasting to the actual point of death is incredibly hard to do because the body will be rejecting the mind with as much resistance as it possibly can all of the way
So although it is possible like any other type of suicide is it is not something that can be undertaken easily at all and so to succeed requires phenomenal free will

[thinkdr]

Would not you say though that the fact that an individual human can willfully fast unto death is evidence that eating and / or drinking are not instincts
They are strong needs but that behavior is not instinctual as is the hive building activity of the worker bee

Fasting to the actual point of death ... although it is possible ... is not something that can be undertaken easily

No one claimed it was easy to do. The issue we were discussing is whether human beings have instincts.
The closest we may come to that is the infant's and baby's fear of falling from a high platform to a lower point. And even many adults are acrophobic - or perhaps very cautious - when at the edge of a high roof.

All this may be a digression, though, from the topic of this thread.

So let me ask you, gentle Readers:

1) are there facts of ethics?

2) is there (or are there) statistically-measurable ethical data?

3) is there any system of ethics that has a structure to it?

4) can Ethics be an objective study, one that may be taught in classrooms?

5) does the Hartman/Katz Ethical system help one achieve moral clarity?

[thinkdr]

.

Are you aware of this site?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/world/cn ... index.html

It acquaints us with people who put Ethics into action!

See the broadcast, where a top winner is chosen by popular vote of the American people, and where the candidates are sponsored by celebrities who donate to the various good causes: Sunday, 12/8/2019 at 8p.m.Eastern Standard Time - today, on CNN - to learn of examples of practical applications of Ethics.

If you caught the show, what did you think of it? Would you consider these folks to be heroes? Does what they do impress you as "heroic"? Do you understand how every candidate is a winner? ...as are the members of society, the rest of us, who live in a better world, a little-more of an ethical world because of their efforts.

Furthermore, at the site to which the following link takes you, one can see who were the candidates and 'winners in previous years. ....very enlightening. A good sampling of practical applied ethics -- hardcore ethics.
https://www.cnn.com/specials/cnn-heroes

[thinkdr]

Henry Sidgwick, the writer of the classic Methods of Ethics, believed that to be a hero one would have to give his or her life, or suffer great damage.

To parcipitants at this Forum:
Do you believe that in order to be known as a "hero" one would have to have given his/her life or suffer great damage?

To learn more about Sidgwick, see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sidgwick/

To read a discussion of this matter, exploring its implications, see pp. 44-46 of THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS: Achieving Moral Clarity -- which is the first reference listed in the Signature below.

Let's hear your views!

[thinkdr]

A NEW THEORY OF ETHICS IS PROPOSED

The new theory of ethics proposed in the References below, is 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 referenced below, where a link to a pdf document that one may download, free of charge, is given.

This ethical theory proposed, for your consideration, is known as the Unified Theory of Ethics because it aims to be a synthesis of all the best concepts from other existing theories, and because it offers a framework in which to fit in new discoveries, new facts, new data relevant to the field of study and research.

This new data may come from such disciplines as Brain Neurology, Cultural Anthropology, Game Theory, Cybernetics, or Behavioral Economics.
Do you believe that human life is valuable?
Do you think that morality could stem from an individual having a good character?

Are you familiar with this new (yet very old) theory, and if so, how would you review it?

We invite your response. questions, and critiques.

[thinkdr]

ANOTHER BENEFIT OBTAINED BY STUDYING ETHICS

Studying Ethics would encourage you to attend to your self-interest provided, though, that it is an Enlightened Self-interest! Be aware that if :

1) either you can think of ways to accomplish any or all of the following three goals
2) and/or if you will do what you can to contribute to making one of these happen –

then you will, as a result, live in a world where your life is an easier and more comfortable one. You will live in what I call “a more-ethical world.’ And this will surely enhance your self-interest. Here are three examples:

1) Reducing poverty to its barest minimum; or
2) creating a new and better way to distil ocean water; or
3) inventing a new, and efficient, way to pull carbon out of the atmosphere.

The probabilities are high that someone – pursuing their hobby – will invent or discover something that, sooner or later, makes your life more comfortable – or gives you more pleasure.

It is good when one understands that accomplishing a noble goal – [such as one of the above examples], or somehow encouraging such developments -- will help one live in a more-ethical world. This consciousness – this awareness -- is known as Enlightened Self-interest.

Such enlightenment is displayed when you ask yourself, as you encounter other human individuals, “How can I create value, so that everyone wins?”
“What can I say or do so that I create the maximum value for all concerned?”
Isn’t it the case that Enlightened Self-interest is superior to – has more value for us – than does mere self-centered concern? [The latter is what is usually meant by the use of the phrase “self-interest.”]

Hence, let’s wise up and be unselfish. Let’s consider others. Let’s be considerate. Let's not disparage other people. And be kind whenever possible.

…And it’s always possible.

Your views?