Value

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Value

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Oct 11, 2020 3:34 pm

phoneutria wrote:hahaha get a hold of this
philosophers discussing value
in 2020 anno domini
should I read the thread
is my mind going to be blown?
I appreciate the label 'philosopher' if I was part of what you noticed, but I don't consider myself one. I'm some guy who has a bunch of opinions, has read some philosophy, and likes to joust and explore. Right or wrong on my part, I tend to think of a philosopher as someone who could actually write something fairly unique in book form in the field of philosophy. An expert of some kind. I'm not a sociologist though I will weigh in in their baliwick also.

I doubt your mind will be blown either.

But what is it about 'value' as a topic that led to this comment. IOW it seems to me this comment could have been made in pretty much any philosophy thread here. What is it about 'value', a discussion of it, that brought on the laughter?
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Oct 11, 2020 3:53 pm

Here’s the deal with all this though...

Sure, I can use a signifier / linguistic token and say “nobody wants their consent violated”

And you can use a signifier / linguistic token and say, “That may be true for you but it’s not true of everyone”

But it is true for everyone. A triangle is true for everyone. These things that are true for everyone rise to a different level than subjective value. People may have a distaste for the word “objective”, but to call truths like these merely subjective is intellectually dishonest.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10800
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Value

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:16 am

Prismatic wrote:I believe the most critical ground of value is the individual's survival which extends to the group's survival.


I would say that immortality is the highest goal of every human being and that the survival of the group is a means to that end. (In other words, your goal is really only to secure your own survival, but in order to do that, you have to secure the survival of the group.)

Thus if, say, to be alive is given a standard value of 100/100 and death = 0, then the value of his house would be say 40/100 which he will certainly give up in exchange to stay alive as long as he can.
So even if the person owns the 'Mona Lisa' which economically and financially is priceless, its real value to a person could only be 75/100 where he would have no qualms to give it up if caught in a life and death situation with his 'Mona Lisa' [merely a piece of canvas with paints] at stake.


I agree that that sort of reasoning applies when working with certainties. But when working with probabilities, which is what people work with in practice most of the time, one can trade short-term security for long-term security. This is otherwise known as "calculated risk".

Obviously there are exceptions to the above, but they are regarded as outside the range of normality (note Normal Distribution).


Or perhaps they are simply acting in accordance with an inaccurate perception of reality?
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Oct 12, 2020 7:06 pm

KT wrote:I would say 'good to x' but otherwise I agree.


The difference between "good to" and "good for" is that "good to" refers to perceived value whereas "good for" refers to real value.

"It's good for you" means "It's of real value to you".

"It's good to you" means "You perceive it to be of real value to you".

I think your stated point is that we do certain things for their own sake and not because of the consequences they lead to. We listen to music, for example, not because we want to bring about certain consequences (e.g. relaxed state of being), but because listening to music is an end in itself.

The thing is, I am not really sure you agree with your own stated point.

Do you REALLY think that we listen to music merely in order to listen to it?
I don't really think that's what you think.

That said, I think you REAL point is something else.

I think your real point is that certain values are relatively easy to perceive correctly (and quite difficult to be wrong about) perhaps entirely due to the fact that the distance between the use of the objects they are assigned to and the effect of such a use is minimal. When you listen to music, you can immediately observe the effects of such an act: you either feel relaxed or you do not. The causal immediacy makes it easy to perceive the relation between the two. And it's only natural to distrust the idea that it can be difficult for a person to accurately perceive how relaxed they are. (Though I would argue this is quite a challenge for many people nowadays.)

So I think you are fine with the distinction between true and false values, it's just that you find it hard to believe that certain values are perceived values due to how easy it is (or should be) to accurately perceive them.

What do you think?
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:05 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
KT wrote:I would say 'good to x' but otherwise I agree.


The difference between "good to" and "good for" is that "good to" refers to perceived value whereas "good for" refers to real value.

"It's good for you" means "It's of real value to you".

"It's good to you" means "You perceive it to be of real value to you".

I think your stated point is that we do certain things for their own sake and not because of the consequences they lead to. We listen to music, for example, not because we want to bring about certain consequences (e.g. relaxed state of being), but because listening to music is an end in itself.
Yes, we are the creatures that can do this.

The thing is, I am not really sure you agree with your own stated point.

Do you REALLY think that we listen to music merely in order to listen to it?
I don't really think that's what you think.
I reject instrumental analyses that means that we only listen to it for some long term goal. That everything we do is really trying to accomplish this goal. I also reject labeling values what is useful for a long term goal. I don't think that is a good new definition of values. I think we value what we prefer, prioritize and choose over other things and we necessarily, for epistemological reasons, need to black box potential underlying purposes. Further I tihnk we value things we did not choose but notice, as in my original example fo the bird flying by. An experience I value, but did not strive for, in that instance. I think there is something simply part of our temperments - much of which may even be accidental (from a genetic viewpoint, contingent on the products of the combination of my parents' genes) that is simply how I am. I am the guy who tends to like X, if this tendency is not overriden by experiences. Separated twin studies support this. And since experiences are also contingent, I may have values based on random stuff. They flow out of this, not toward something. Just as my liking flavor X has this contingent and it need not be leading me to some goal, other values also lack this plan.

I think your real point is that certain values are relatively easy to perceive correctly (and quite difficult to be wrong about) perhaps entirely due to the fact that the distance between the use of the objects they are assigned to and the effect of such a use is minimal. When you listen to music, you can immediately observe the effects of such an act: you either feel relaxed or you do not. The causal immediacy makes it easy to perceive the relation between the two. And it's only natural to distrust the idea that it can be difficult for a person to accurately perceive how relaxed they are. (Though I would argue this is quite a challenge for many people nowadays.)
I agre with the last point. I do not think it is easy even for extremely perceptive introspectors to know their own motivations for a value all the time or even most of the time.

So I think you are fine with the distinction between true and false values, it's just that you find it hard to believe that certain values are perceived values due to how easy it is (or should be) to accurately perceive them.
To me, as indicated from before, I think those terms are category errors.

I do think one can have values for instrumental reasons and this can potentially be shown to be a problem. You want people to be happy so you put a high value on putting cocaine in the water supply or selling coke to kids. Here one might be able to demonstrate that the derived value - valuing the drugging of people with or without their consent - is confused. Derived values, especially if both parties in the discussion know it is a derived value, can be criticized in this way. But other values, I don't think so.

But I'd like you to keep the onus, as the thread creator. Could you demonstrate that all values actually derive, in all people if I have understood correctly, from the same highest goal. We all have this goal and all our values are intended to help us achieve this goal. Could you demonstrate that this is really what is going on when we value anything?
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:22 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:But I'd like you to keep the onus, as the thread creator. Could you demonstrate that all values actually derive, in all people if I have understood correctly, from the same highest goal. We all have this goal and all our values are intended to help us achieve this goal. Could you demonstrate that this is really what is going on when we value anything?

Image
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Value

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:45 pm

“Nobody wants their consent violated” is a universal value put in negative terms.

In positive terms, the universal value is:

(As an affirmation) —— we all choose our desired experiences at nobodies expense ——

This is the goal of existent beings as a whole.

Karpel tried to defend ‘random’ not intentional values as exceedingly valuable — the ‘surprise factor’

I agree. But you’d consensually add surprises in a fully consensual reality if that’s what you wanted.

So Karpel didn’t refute universal value one iota with his attempt to defend his moral nihilism. The main reason Karpel disengaged with me, was my ability to lay down universals. Universals bother Karpel a lot.

It’s a dysfunction of his. The reason universals annoy certain people is because accountability scares them.

That why iambiguous and Karpel were such a fundamental pair on ILP who lock horns all the time — they’re obsessed with their mirror images.

Now, I’m a guy who’s been disengaged by both iambiguous and Karpel because neither of them believe we live forever and that there is a universal goal for all beings.

So I state obvious proof for why we live forever, and then I lay down morality that applies to all sentience.

They disengaged for lame reasons. I remember those reasons. What’s really occurring with these two is that accountability is not something palatable to both of them. The implications. And by the way, forever scares the shit out of people! A googleplex raised to the googleplex power number of years is an infinitesimal compared to forever.

People would rather be consoled by oblivion than take responsibility and prepare for forever. Like a scared child in the corner. This work I’m doing is adult work.

I’ve never disengaged someone online. There’s a difference between iambiguous, Karpel and I...

I run as fast as I can into the muck, and they get snooty...

The only person I contributed to Perma banning from any board was the weird esoteric math guy because he kept writing the simple quote — /quote function and literally made up shit I said which I never did say and debate that! That’s fucked up shit!

I’ve never seen that in a message board before.

I know people move at their own pace. It’s a luxury, a luxury I wasn’t afforded. I know how hard it is to learn at someone else’s pace. So I mostly just let it go.

But there’s a real topic in this thread. I’m engaging it and being ignored by most participants. I’m arguing in good faith. Can anyone say I’m trolling a value thread here?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10800
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Value

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:57 pm

KT wrote:But I'd like you to keep the onus, as the thread creator. Could you demonstrate that all values actually derive, in all people if I have understood correctly, from the same highest goal. We all have this goal and all our values are intended to help us achieve this goal. Could you demonstrate that this is really what is going on when we value anything?


I don't have an argument as of yet. Perhaps the best thing I can do right now is clarify my position so that it can be tested.

Note that part of what you're asking me to demonstrate is beyond the scope of this thread. Yes, I do think that all people are guided by one and the same highest goal (which is basically survival), but this is not the subject of this thread. (It is related to it, so I don't want to banish it. But it's not the core of this thread.)
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:08 am

Over the past 15 years, I have seen this debate many times. I am betting that the reductionist will not be able to convey to the non-reductionist the facts and logic involved. To use an old very impactful quote from James many years ago, "You can't teach a cat that the internet is real. And that is why we have religions."
Image
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Value

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:24 am

obsrvr524 wrote:Over the past 15 years, I have seen this debate many times. I am betting that the reductionist will not be able to convey to the non-reductionist the facts and logic involved. To use an old very impactful quote from James many years ago, "You can't teach a cat that the internet is real. And that is why we have religions."
Image


You can teach a cat what consent violation is.

Every sentient being, even a microbe, knows what consent violation is.

It is a law, that will never be violated, that nobody wants their consent violated. Even the ‘laws’ James presumably offered have exceptions. This law I’m stating has no exceptions.

James was confused about a lot of things.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10800
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Value

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:38 am

Ecmandu wrote:Every sentient being, even a microbe, knows what consent violation is.

Another idea that I bet couldn't be proven to a non-reductionist. Different people think differently leading to - "bubbles of belief" - sometimes expanding, sometimes bursting, usually never changing.

Ecmandu wrote:James was confused about a lot of things.

I have seen some of your confusions about what James said. I didn't find that it was James who was confused.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Value

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:10 am

James was deeply confused about how existence works.

We are collectively imagining all of this. james fervently believed in a single creator.

James went down an absurd rabbit hole of science without understanding that all of us made this and we can all change it.

James metaphysics was infantile.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10800
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Value

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Oct 14, 2020 5:36 am

Ecmandu wrote:James was deeply confused about how existence works.

My study here has been about James - his character type, his rationality, his word usage, his philosophies, his assumptions, his references, his conclusions, his subjects of interest, his state of mind and heart, his concerns, his upbringing, and what kind of people he interacted with among other things.

Amidst all of that, you interjected on occasion and my interest was about how he handled the kind of interaction you pose (just as many others). I haven't studied you or anyone here beyond those concerns and am not likely to. I don't have that kind of time nor interest.

My surmise at this point is that you had a very hard time understanding the things that James was saying so you argued strangely. You seemed to just want to disagree regardless of anything said. And recently after running across your "James is Wrong" thread and reading it I decided to interact with you myself just to see what it was like to do so. At this point I feel that you are no more in a position to talk about what James did or did not believe than if you had gotten a Russian language translation of a French language copy of Mao Tse Tung's book On Guerrilla Warfare and tried to quickly skim through it one afternoon.

You don't research. You don't read books. You try to draw conclusion without first gaining information (references). You don't make sure through questioning that you fully understand the other person's words before you take a stance and argue endlessly. There are many people like that. Their opinions are pretty useless.

Ecmandu wrote:james fervently believed in a single creator.

That is another example. James actually defined a single creator in many different ways. If you understood what he said, you could see that he left no room for question. To a rationalist and analytical reductionist it was clear that he was necessarily and indisputably right even if unpopular.

I think it was Plato (not Socrates) who said that no one likes he who speaks the truth. That alone would make James extremely unpopular (as was clear when he first came here years ago). My lingering question is still, "Why did he stay on this board? Who was he really communicating with? What did he know about certain international affairs? And how did he know it?" James had boldly mentioned many things out loud before he came here that he never mentioned here. Why not? I have my theories.

I can tell you that he certainly woke me up on a few things as well as some other people. I know 2 young scholars looking into his SAM co-op, CRH, thing. I will eventually be looking into that more too. He seemed to have many solutions to long standing issues.

Ecmandu wrote:James metaphysics was infantile.

I see that as being right up there with "Mr Trump did a horribly irresponsible job concerning COVID-19." As James would say, "Look in the mirror" (or similar). But of course, you won't - never do.

I think people believe what they want to believe because they don't let themselves see anything else, especially the weak of heart. Just keep blowing at the walls of your bubble. See if you can get it to rise.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Value

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Oct 14, 2020 8:45 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:I don't have an argument as of yet. Perhaps the best thing I can do right now is clarify my position so that it can be tested.
OK, got it.

Note that part of what you're asking me to demonstrate is beyond the scope of this thread. Yes, I do think that all people are guided by one and the same highest goal (which is basically survival), but this is not the subject of this thread. (It is related to it, so I don't want to banish it. But it's not the core of this thread.)
OK, what would be more central to the thread as you see it. The OP is set up as a poll with two questions. Would it be better to go into more detail on an answer?
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:40 pm

Obsrvr...

I just told you the absolute truth about all of this and you ran to James’ metaphysics.

James was wrong about just about everything he wrote.

If you want a small side project compared to what James wrote... read my book being published for free on ILP...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1#p2773401
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10800
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Value

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Oct 14, 2020 5:03 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Obsrvr...

I just told you the absolute truth about all of this and you ran to James’ metaphysics.

James was wrong about just about everything he wrote.

I am sure that you believe that
and want others to believe it.

But I am not going to argue that here.
Ecmandu wrote:If you want a small side project compared to what James wrote...

I don't. I am not a psychiatrist looking for case studies.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Value

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:04 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Obsrvr...

I just told you the absolute truth about all of this and you ran to James’ metaphysics.

James was wrong about just about everything he wrote.

I am sure that you believe that
and want others to believe it.

But I am not going to argue that here.
Ecmandu wrote:If you want a small side project compared to what James wrote...

I don't. I am not a psychiatrist looking for case studies.


Hmm... that’s funny. So you don’t think James had mental health issues? Never mind. It’s not worth it.

The truth always comes out eventually.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10800
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Value

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:47 pm

To perhaps get Magnus started (I hope) can I ask if there is anyone in this discussion who accepts the word "value" to mean only conscious intent to value, disregarding what unconscious material objects might be doing?

If the answer is that "value" is to be only concerned with conscious intent, the argument would go one way. If the argument involves even unconscious intent the argument would begin differently yet end up in the same place.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Value

Postby thinkdr » Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:01 am

With Regard to the Value Dimensions

Something is good if it has all the properties necessary to fulfill its purpose (its meaning.) It is good to have a moral purpose, to live a purposeful life. By the definition of ‘good’, it is good to fulfill that moral purpose. The ultimate purpose, according to Ethics, is to provide a quality life for one and all.

Thus one may easily conclude that an individual is good if s/he has ethical ideals and lives up to them ...practices what s/he preaches. "Talks the talk, and walks the walk." Such a self-image (consisting of ethical ideals) is the meaning which that individual is to fulfill. Ethical ideals are kindness, empathy, compassion, integrity, authenticity, genuineness, sincerity, honesty, etc. They all indicate much the same - a person who knows his ethics.

Familiar to many are the concepts: mind, body, and spirit. Also many are acquainted with the distinctions between intellectual values, practical values, and people values. These notions are applications of three dimensions of value, akin to different colors on the spectrum. Let’s refer to them as S, E, and I.

S -values are the intellectual values.
E-values are the practical, everyday values.
I-values are people values.

...To be continued in a future post....

Was this post helpful, so far?
:idea: For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out these links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment

THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS
[NEW] :!:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf


THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018)
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT ... %20all.pdf

LIVING WELL: how ethics helps us flourish
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf


BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf


ETHICAL ADVENTURES http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ETHICAL%20ADVENTURES.pdf

When you search Bing for the following pdf selection you may wish to start with page 20 in order to skip the technicalities:
Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course
thinkdr
Thinker
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:05 pm

Re: Value

Postby thinkdr » Thu Oct 15, 2020 7:12 pm

Continuing where the recent post left off.....

To help the reader see the distinctions, in the following paragraphs I will offer illustrations and examples. According to Value Science there are three types of basic values. They are Systemic Value, Extrinsic Value, and Intrinsic Value. Abbreviated these are S, E, and I values.
And the late Dr. Leon Pomeroy, a professional psychotherapist, one of the early researchers in this field, tells us that it is as important to know our SEIs as it is to know our ABCs.

Here are some examples of how these basic value dimensions are applied: Thoughts are S-values; things are E-values; persons and involvements are I-values.

People usually S-Value theories, systems, ideologies, blueprints, plans, zip codes, circuit diagrams, technical language, black-and-white thin
king, scientific models, and all the "isms." They are appropriately valued Systemically.

E-Value is the valuation people usually place upon things of this world, practicalities, empirical matters, know-how, savoir -faire, social, every day concerns, functionality, diplomacy, worldly considerations, categories, etc.

You may be likely to I-Value your mother, your spouse, your dearest ones, unique persons you love, beloved treasures, masterpieces of art, priceless items, etc. We value those Intrinsically whenever we identify with and bond with them.

Value scientists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_value speak of those three values as "dimensions of value." We need them all. Yet, as we shall now explain, some are more important than others and they take priority.

Questions? Comments? Reviews?
:idea: For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out these links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment

THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS
[NEW] :!:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf


THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018)
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT ... %20all.pdf

LIVING WELL: how ethics helps us flourish
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf


BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf


ETHICAL ADVENTURES http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ETHICAL%20ADVENTURES.pdf

When you search Bing for the following pdf selection you may wish to start with page 20 in order to skip the technicalities:
Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course
thinkdr
Thinker
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:05 pm

Re: Value

Postby thinkdr » Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:55 am

Science entails measurement. When we describe a forest (or wood) as "thick" or as "hin" we are giving it a measure -- albeit a rough one.

The three basic Dimensions of Value provide a measure for value (even though it is a rough measure) as depicted in the value formula I > E > S. To see the logical justification for this formula see the first few pages of BASIC ETHICS: A Systemic Approach.

An illustration as to how these tools apply, say to Epistemology, we take three familiar epistemological concepts and apply the Value Dimensions to them:

S: universals

E: particulars [categories]

I: singulars [individuals; uniquenesses]

According to the value formula, something that is unique is worth more than a mere category, which in turn is worth more than a quality shared by several things. For example, "This red comfortable easy-chair" is worth more than "red easy-chairs," which is in turn more valuable to us than "redness." {The latter is shared by some fire trucks, by red grapes, and by red sweaters.}

Another analysis using the value tools is this:

S: Conceptualization ...E: Perception ...I: Experience.
By "experience" is meant: the integration and synthesis of conceiving and perceiving. For many more applications of the basic value dimensions to Philosophical topics, as well as to everyday concerns, see pp. 64-66 of End Note 4, in the document, A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS, here:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/A%20UNIFIED%20THEORY%20OF%20ETHICS.pdf


Comments? Your views?
Any questions?
:idea: For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out these links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment

THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS
[NEW] :!:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf


THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018)
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT ... %20all.pdf

LIVING WELL: how ethics helps us flourish
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf


BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf


ETHICAL ADVENTURES http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ETHICAL%20ADVENTURES.pdf

When you search Bing for the following pdf selection you may wish to start with page 20 in order to skip the technicalities:
Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course
thinkdr
Thinker
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:05 pm

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users