Benefits and assets of the New Paradigm for Ethics

[Meno_]

Hello again and I quote You:

"When we help each other we all thrive, provided what we do is truly helpful, i.e., it contributes toward a better world as well as a Quality Life for all"


This dilemma has at one time been appropriate for prisoners, who had more face to face contacts, and they were afforded that opportunity in a closed environment in which freed and the lack of were starkly contradictory.


Nowdays, such contrast has interwoven bounderies, in or outside Goffman, and the set standards leaves the question of freedom and responsibility more widely extrinsic to interpretation.

The need at this moment for some presumptive logic to support the contension that a solution to solve conflict is imminent and urgent , the example above showing the desperate diminution to lower bars of cultural and identifiable differences seeping into both sides of conflicting situations . So as to become viable, forming certain logical synapses out of that sense of urgency of extrinsic elements becomes necessary.

New standards forming such needed paradigm are at times fruitless to overcome the differences imputed by the needed connection implicit within and without the synaptic and the behavioral focii, which may change into illusive optical changes to be relied upon.

That said, reactive conscious behavior, will, under today's emphatic inception, will bar instrumentation of needed quick ending of conflict resolution

The need to thin out the paradigm as a way to assure a cognitive assurance against fracturing it, is a felt need, and surely depend on the substance of such assurance.

The assurance for such need, has been going downhill. giving rise to thickening the center of such an asset, before benefits can be surmised to appear at those forming fractures.

The impending fractured causing the coming of the angst, is indicative of the need to intervene, for complete fractures may no longer be open to repair.

This may be less , or more 'philosophical' the implication warrants, but because of 'fracturing' being brought up time and again, within contexts that may relate to ethical/moral digression, just brought this in as an unexplored element.

For whatever reason You may add to this or, ignore it, without the slightest reservation, assuredly.

[thinkdr]

WHAT’S IN OUR SELF-INTEREST?

To enhance our self-interest we seek to maximize the value we get out of life. This does not have to be calculating, nor does it have to involve scheming; it can be spontaneous. It is usually an unconscious or pre-conscious process.
One of the best ways to do this is to live a meaningful life ...but what does this entail?

This entails serving others without being a martyr. It means expressing love. It involves showing responsibility -- taking responsibility for one's actions -- which means being ready and willing to be held accountable. It also entails making a contribution to the well-being of individual persons; extending one's "ethical radius" to include a wider group than earlier; identifying with the family of human-kind; and, as time goes on, becoming a better person than you were before.

[Great Again]

WHAT’S IN OUR SELF-INTEREST?

To enhance our self-interest we seek to maximize the value we get out of life. This does not have to be calculating, nor does it have to involve scheming; it can be spontaneous. It is usually an unconscious or pre-conscious process.
One of the best ways to do this is to live a meaningful life ...but what does this entail?

This entails serving others without being a martyr. It means expressing love. It involves showing responsibility -- taking responsibility for one's actions -- which means being ready and willing to be held accountable.

I agree.

It also entails making a contribution to the well-being of individual persons; extending one's "ethical radius" to include a wider group than earlier; identifying with the family of human-kind; and, as time goes on, becoming a better person than you were before.

No. For purely anthropological - human-evolutionary and especially human-historical - reasons, people are not able to do what you expect them to do. Whenever people have done that, there has been more injustice than before. Humans are not capable of embracing the whole humanity for anthropological reasons, but only those from their closer environment (family, kinship, maybe more, e.g. nation or cultural circle, but not humanity).

Communism also demanded what you demand and murdered 500 million people in the process. Great, isn't it?

[thinkdr]

WHAT’S IN OUR SELF-INTEREST?

To enhance our self-interest we seek to maximize the value we get out of life. This does not have to be calculating, nor does it have to involve scheming; it can be spontaneous. It is usually an unconscious or pre-conscious process.
One of the best ways to do this is to live a meaningful life ...but what does this entail?

This entails serving others without being a martyr. It means expressing love. It involves showing responsibility -- taking responsibility for one's actions -- which means being ready and willing to be held accountable.

I agree.

It also entails making a contribution to the well-being of individual persons; extending one's "ethical radius" to include a wider group than earlier; identifying with the family of human-kind; and, as time goes on, becoming a better person than you were before.

No. For purely anthropological - human-evolutionary and especially human-historical - reasons, people are not able to do what you expect them to do. Whenever people have done that, there has been more injustice than before. Humans are not capable of embracing the whole humanity for anthropological reasons, but only those from their closer environment (family, kinship, maybe more, e.g. nation or cultural circle, but not humanity).

Communism also demanded what you demand and murdered 500 million people in the process. Great, isn't it?

First of all, I don't "demand" it. I don't - with regard to ethics - demand anything I am just relating that The Inclusivity Principle of the new paradigm for Ethics recommends including more individuals that you consider to be your 'in-group.'

When you say "historical reasons," you are telling us it (the widespread adoption of the Inclusivity Principle) hasn't happened yet: No kidding

While I admit that, so far, humans may not have evolved to the point recommended as being in their full self-interest; that does not mean that they cannot. As evolution proceeds, they can eventually reach this point. ...Some of us go even farther and manage currently to identify with the planet Saturn. {Modesty forbids my informing you that I include it in my circle.}



What do the rest of you think about these topics? ...Discussion? Ideas?

[Great Again]

WHAT’S IN OUR SELF-INTEREST?

To enhance our self-interest we seek to maximize the value we get out of life. This does not have to be calculating, nor does it have to involve scheming; it can be spontaneous. It is usually an unconscious or pre-conscious process.
One of the best ways to do this is to live a meaningful life ...but what does this entail?

This entails serving others without being a martyr. It means expressing love. It involves showing responsibility -- taking responsibility for one's actions -- which means being ready and willing to be held accountable.

I agree.

It also entails making a contribution to the well-being of individual persons; extending one's "ethical radius" to include a wider group than earlier; identifying with the family of human-kind; and, as time goes on, becoming a better person than you were before.

No. For purely anthropological - human-evolutionary and especially human-historical - reasons, people are not able to do what you expect them to do. Whenever people have done that, there has been more injustice than before. Humans are not capable of embracing the whole humanity for anthropological reasons, but only those from their closer environment (family, kinship, maybe more, e.g. nation or cultural circle, but not humanity).

Communism also demanded what you demand and murdered 500 million people in the process. Great, isn't it?

First of all, I don't "demand" it. I don't - with regard to ethics - demand anything I am just relating that The Inclusivity Principle of the new paradigm for Ethics recommends including more individuals that you consider to be your 'in-group.'

When you say "historical reasons," you are telling us it (the widespread adoption of the Inclusivity Principle) hasn't happened yet: No kidding

While I admit that, so far, humans may not have evolved to the point recommended as being in their full self-interest; that does not mean that they cannot. As evolution proceeds, they can eventually reach this point. ...Some of us go even farther and manage currently to identify with the planet Saturn. {Modesty forbids my informing you that I include it in my circle.}



What do the rest of you think about these topics? ...Discussion? Ideas?

Humans have to become the so-called "transhumans" in order to change their anthropological structure. Transhumans are no longer humans, only partly humans. But the evolution of human beings is finished when humans have become transhumans. The word "trans" means "beyond", so "transhuman" means "beyond human". And that is how it should be understood. Unfortunately!

[thinkdr]

Greetings, Great Again

I have a question for you.

You write:

umans have to become the so-called "transhumans" in order to change their anthropological structure. Transhumans are no longer humans, only partly human.

My question is:

Who do you think had a more-accurate view of human nature? Was it Thomas Hobbes, author of LEVIATHAN, a writer in the 1500s, to whom I devote a brief allusion in my booklet, BASIC ETHICS [see pp 42-45 here]:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf


Or was it

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who in 1762 wrote both: The Social Contract as well as Émile; or, On Education.


Readers may wish ato forecast which one GA will choose.....

[thinkdr]

A typo crept into my previous post. So this is an editorial correction:
Thomas Hobbes was born in 1588. He published the book Leviathan in 1651. He lived 91 years. See the Wikipedia entry on him for more details.

A belief in aspects of Hobbes' views on humanity's "state of nature" is likely held by those human beings who are predators on their own species ...predators on other humans. They may hold that "life is brutish," for they help make it so. Examples of predators are con-artists; slave-holders; malignant-minded power-seekers such as the one we endured in the last four years; manipulative exploiters; those with a criminal mind; etc.

Both Hobbes and Rousseau wrote about the concept of a Social Contract.

The answer to the question posed in the recent post, however, as to which philosophy of human nature to accept is: "neither." Instead consult modern Brain Neurology, Moral , PsychologyDevelopmental Psychology, Behavioral Ethics, and related fields of science for the latest research on topics which have a bearing on "human nature."


Comments? Discussion? Informational updates? Etc. ...all are welcome.

[thinkdr]

Be sure to check out this site - especially section 4 - and you will better understand why I speak of Ethics as a science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_psychology

As the Unified Theory of Ethics (also known as 'the new paradigm' for Ethics) informs us, the field of Moral Psychology is the experimental branch of the Unified Theory. The Theory supplies the basic concepts that serve to organize the studies, and the research being done by the psychologists...in a discipline that was once known as Philosophy of Mind. Nowadays these devisers of creative tests and experiments focus on topics that enhance and fit in with the concerns of Ethics, concerns such as Moral Reasoning, Normative implications, and Stages of Moral Development.

[Great Again]

My question is:

Who do you think had a more-accurate view of human nature? Was it Thomas Hobbes, author of LEVIATHAN, a writer in the 1500s 1600s (17th century), to whom I devote a brief allusion in my booklet, BASIC ETHICS [see pp 42-45 here]:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf


Or was it

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who in 1762 wrote both: The Social Contract as well as Émile; or, On Education.


Readers may wish ato forecast which one GA will choose.....

Those two were not the only ones who wrote about it.There are quite a few who did that as well. Hobbes experienced a terrible war, and because of that he wrote both about it and about the conclusions he thought should be drawn.

Kant was the inventor of anthropology. After Kant came other conclusions concerning anthropology as well. I don't know if we have to go into them in detail. But I do know that one has to use one's own head to come to certain conclusions, which one then confronts with ethics and reconsiders, especially with regard to all historicity of such questions.

The prospect that one can always interpret all this only relatively is great.

[thinkdr]

.


Let the power of example
outshine and replace
an example of power!


[b]This can be understood as applying individually, or to a group, or to an entire country.

In any country, if most all the people there are thriving and happy, the people of other countries around the planet will eventually want to copy that shining example!

So now we have a goal at which to aim: let's clean up our act



What do you say?

[thinkdr]

.
NORMATIVE ETHICS - APPLIED ETHICS

This link alludes to a real-life problem: - https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... g-mediator

The new paradigm for Ethics would indicate that the residents in that area are to:
have an attitude of helpfulness;
remember to avoid disparaging or debasing their neighbors;
be careful that you (as one of the disputants) are not seen as selfish because you strive to avoid selfishness;
thus you will work on devising a schedule for sharing the limited space for parking;
and, be willing to point your car in a direction that allows others to have some room. All this with a broad and deep commitment to cooperation, since you are keenly aware of the benefits that could ensure from cooperating.

The new paradigm for Ethics admits that our brains are pre-wired so that most everyone is looking out for his/her own benefit [as it is conceived/perceived to be actually in their benefit.] Of course, they could be wrong about this conception.

If you were called upon to be the mediator, and/or if you can't agree fully with what Ethics recommends in this case, what would you prescribe for these upset neighbors?
.

[Great Again]

Greetings, Thinkdr.

Let the power of example
outshine and replace
an example of power!


[b]This can be understood as applying individually, or to a group, or to an entire country.

In any country, if most all the people there are thriving and happy, the people of other countries around the planet will eventually want to copy that shining example!

So now we have a goal at which to aim: let's clean up our act



What do you say?

I have to disappoint you, because we don't have your goal to work towards.A country where almost everyone is doing well and is happy, the people of other countries on the planet will not necessarily copy this shining example, but will most likely want to conquer it!

There are several ways that lead to the implementation of the conquest of this country. History knows all the examples of this.

I'm sorry.

[thinkdr]

Those who aspire to do philosophy would best be careful not to be too-rigidly oriented in the past, nor in the tribalism of existing subcultures, but rather love the wisdom expressed so well by Shaw, a quotable fellow. Hence I shall quote him.

“You see things; you say, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?”
― George Bernard Shaw, Back to Methuselah

We all might enhance our human development by becoming a bit of a futurist.

(Myself, 51 years ago, volunteered to be the Midwest Director of The Wold Future Society, a post I held for about two years. It was a fun experience.
I also took two years to get a Ph.D. in my Philosophy major. Now that I am close to 100, I still like creating myself, and creating a better future for those who will survive me. I want them to live a life of quality and well-being. This includes Great Again.)

[Great Again]

Thank you, Thinkdr.

George Bernard Shaw also said that he wanted to kill useless humans.

History is about future too. We should learn from history because of the future.

[obsrvr524]

Those who aspire to do philosophy would best be careful not to be too-rigidly oriented in the past (as he quotes Shaw - )

And those who have aspiration for the future would best be careful to not ignore the past.

[Great Again]

Those who aspire to do philosophy would best be careful not to be too-rigidly oriented in the past (as he quotes Shaw - )

And those who have aspiration for the future would best be careful to not ignore the past.

Yes, for sure.

[promethean75]

"George Bernard Shaw also said that he wanted to kill useless humans."

If bernard were tried and found guilty of participating in genocide, and then broke out of prison with a homemade knife, it would be called shaw's shank redemption.

Thank you thank you

[thinkdr]

.

When I see what you write about, promethean75, I believe I may see eye to eye with you ---

---provided we're the same height.