Gloominary wrote:The natural needs of oneself and those closest to oneself . . . precede the artificial wants of those furthest from oneself.
..a natural need is something we can't survive or be in a fair . . . health without, both physically, mentally and emotionally.
Gloominary wrote:Ethics is the critical exploration of and experimentation with morals and values.
Morals and values are, just carefully considered preferences about what's right and wrong (morals) and what's good and bad (values).
Normative ethics is the critical exploration of and experimentation with overarching principles by which morals and values are, evaluated.
A normative moral value is the supreme moral value by which all others are evaluated.
Mine is as follows:
The natural needs of oneself and those closest to oneself (closest genetically, spiritually and literally) precede the artificial wants of those furthest from oneself.
The former is of primary importance, indispensable, both extrinsically, for one's long term happiness, and intrinsically, the latter is of secondary importance, expendable.
Ideally we should satisfy both, but realistically if circumstances force one to choose, the former shouldn't be compromised or jeopardized for the sake of the latter, the latter should be compromised or jeopardized for the sake of the former.
It's always worth pursuing the former, but sometimes it isn't worth pursuing the latter, not only because the latter can compromise or jeopardise the former, but because pursuing the latter, just isn't worth it.
Altho it depends on the person and people, often it's better to keep one's artificial wants few, far in between/readily attainable.
Better to be free from anxiety, in a state of ataraxy, than worrying much about what one doesn't need.
In order to further clarify what I mean, a natural need is something we can't survive or be in a fair (doesn't have to be great or perfect) health without, physically, mentally and emotionally.
What damages the mind ultimately damages the body one way or another.
Ideally one should take care of their needs and the needs of those closest to them by taking care of others' needs, but realistically if circumstances force one to choose, again the former should be prioritized over the latter.
Anyway, looking forward to feedback, to criticisms of my propositions, as I'm already well aware that much more needs to be clarified.
I'm also looking forward to having others share their own idiosyncratic normative morals and values, here, if they have any, as well as exploring well known ones, such as utilitarianism ('the greatest happiness for the greatest number'), Kantianism (his 'treat others as ends, not as means' and his other, wordier one, which escapes me) and so on.
Del Ivers wrote:Not intending to make this a political argument, but how would that play, let's say, in the context of the Trump 'base'? That was 25% of the population deeming that their needs preceded the other 75%. As we have seen, the result of that 25 percent's need is a mess that the 75% have to deal with and hardly what could be characterized as a supreme moral value.
I understand that proximity counts for much for the individual and those nearest, it's survival. But in a collective that simply wouldn't work, it would be like one city block in a large, metropolitan area claiming that its needs precede the needs of the rest of the city. Needless to say, the city won't be receptive to that one block's sense of precedence.
Now, if I were living in a remote cabin and it had a stream of fresh water nearby, it would be sensible to regard the usage of it as preceding the needs of another cabin and its inhabitants which is miles away; natural distance and what that signifies on different levels. But in a collective the dynamics are very different. So much so, that if the collective paradigm were to revert to the individual or small group precedence then pandemonium would ensue. Imagine someone telling you: "Hey, buddy, starting tomorrow there will be no more food at supermarkets, nor water from your plumbing, from tomorrow on you will have to be a hunter-gatherer to survive."
I don't know, Gloominary, maybe you have your animal skins, spears, running shoes, and the last tube ever of anti-fungal cream ready. But regardless, it will be rough out there.
Prismatic567 wrote:Gloominary wrote:Ethics is the critical exploration of and experimentation with morals and values.
Morals and values are, just carefully considered preferences about what's right and wrong (morals) and what's good and bad (values).
Normative ethics is the critical exploration of and experimentation with overarching principles by which morals and values are, evaluated.
A normative moral value is the supreme moral value by which all others are evaluated.
Mine is as follows:
The natural needs of oneself and those closest to oneself (closest genetically, spiritually and literally) precede the artificial wants of those furthest from oneself.
The former is of primary importance, indispensable, both extrinsically, for one's long term happiness, and intrinsically, the latter is of secondary importance, expendable.
Ideally we should satisfy both, but realistically if circumstances force one to choose, the former shouldn't be compromised or jeopardized for the sake of the latter, the latter should be compromised or jeopardized for the sake of the former.
It's always worth pursuing the former, but sometimes it isn't worth pursuing the latter, not only because the latter can compromise or jeopardise the former, but because pursuing the latter, just isn't worth it.
Altho it depends on the person and people, often it's better to keep one's artificial wants few, far in between/readily attainable.
Better to be free from anxiety, in a state of ataraxy, than worrying much about what one doesn't need.
In order to further clarify what I mean, a natural need is something we can't survive or be in a fair (doesn't have to be great or perfect) health without, physically, mentally and emotionally.
What damages the mind ultimately damages the body one way or another.
Ideally one should take care of their needs and the needs of those closest to them by taking care of others' needs, but realistically if circumstances force one to choose, again the former should be prioritized over the latter.
Anyway, looking forward to feedback, to criticisms of my propositions, as I'm already well aware that much more needs to be clarified.
I'm also looking forward to having others share their own idiosyncratic normative morals and values, here, if they have any, as well as exploring well known ones, such as utilitarianism ('the greatest happiness for the greatest number'), Kantianism (his 'treat others as ends, not as means' and his other, wordier one, which escapes me) and so on.
What you proposed should not be normalized as normative ethics in the future.
What should be normative ethics in the future should be based on an effective Framework and System of Moral and Ethics.
Within such a Framework, the natural needs of the collective should override that of the individuals.
Within Kant's system of ethics, the individual must be treated as an end in itself on a collective basis. In this case every individual without exception [thus collectively] must adopt that maxim. No individual can use another human being as a mean to achieve his personal selfish ends.
The above do not stand by itself, but in the Kantian system there are more 'wordier' maxims as you mentioned. I will not go into it in detail.
Gloominary wrote:For me, myself and my fellows on the one hand, whom I'm more qualitatively connected to, and the collective on the other, whom I'm more quantitatively connected to, are of about equal importance.
Rather than sacrificing the former's interests for the latter's or vice versa, I prefer a more mutually beneficial relationship between them, reciprocally altruistic.
I defacto agree. I am like this. I care more about those I care more about. Genetics hasn't had so much to do with it, beyond my family that is, but in various ways I got close to certain people beyond the family, I and I care about their needs more than I do others.Gloominary wrote:The natural needs of oneself and those closest to oneself (closest genetically, spiritually and literally) precede the artificial wants of those furthest from oneself.
The former is of primary importance, indispensable, both extrinsically, for one's long term happiness, and intrinsically, the latter is of secondary importance, expendable.
Ideally we should satisfy both, but realistically if circumstances force one to choose, the former shouldn't be compromised or jeopardized for the sake of the latter, the latter should be compromised or jeopardized for the sake of the former.
I think this is complicated. I think we have to call out abuse of power, regardless. I could argue that i the long term this might benefit my in group, but, I think there is some game theory stuff in there also right off the bat. If my in group calls bullshit on power abuse, then pershaps other in groups will do this when I am under the thumb.It's always worth pursuing the former, but sometimes it isn't worth pursuing the latter, not only because the latter can compromise or jeopardise the former, but because pursuing the latter, just isn't worth it.
AS you say, there are very few people who don't follow the heuristic of Gloominary's you cited. So there are a variety of ways of doing this, with quite a range of differences. YOu can leave a lot of room for win win. You can interpret everything as us/them so always be giving your group priority when there is in fact no zero sum game. I have come out of the left, and in most ways I am still there, toward the anarchist end. But on some level I am tired of the Left always being so good, as if when push came to shove they wouldn't suddenly go tribal. It is easy to be priviledged and demand that people be nicer to other groups, knowing that they won't and also that you will never have to draw a line and reject this or that wanna be immigrant or feel overwhelmed by taxes or whatever. One gets to be good, while struggling without much real risk in a rigged game where one will likely not be tested. No lifeboat situation, because in one's gut one knows that the right will be yelling louder to prevent them. (and also be creating them).Del Ivers wrote:The summary take-away for me from Gloominary's view is,
"And I prefer win/win interactions, but in situations where it's win/lose, there's no way round it, I prefer me and my fellows."
Ideal preference versus necessary preference. There's nothing new about that, we all do it in one degree or another. But we live in times where the social context, e.g., society, government, technology, etc., does not make for simplistic win/win situations. If you live in a medium or a major city you can certainly note tribal preferences at work but overall the picture of it is a coordinated tribalism. If you become too 'privately' tribal in that coordination then you usually end up having to get yourself a win/lose lawyer. And even if you won on a particular case, that does not mean that you're scot-free from now on with all your preferences.
One has to look no further than Donald Trump for an example of someone who wants his preferred tribalism to prevail against coordinated tribalism. But even there he couldn't care less about his tribe (base), it's about his private preferences. Ultimately, he and those who think in those terms will fail simply because the stakes are way too high for the larger coordination to allow personal preferences to dominate. If that were allowed, then everyone from extreme left to extreme right would find themselves in a lose/lose situation. You won't find many lawyers - if any - who will do pro bono work on that.
Why not consider embracing the Unified Theory of Ethics proposed by R.S. Hartman and M. C. Katz?.
Del Ivers wrote:The summary take-away for me from Gloominary's view is,
"And I prefer win/win interactions, but in situations where it's win/lose, there's no way round it, I prefer me and my fellows."
Ideal preference versus necessary preference. There's nothing new about that, we all do it in one degree or another. But we live in times where the social context, e.g., society, government, technology, etc., does not make for simplistic win/win situations. If you live in a medium or a major city you can certainly note tribal preferences at work but overall the picture of it is a coordinated tribalism. If you become too 'privately' tribal in that coordination then you usually end up having to get yourself a win/lose lawyer. And even if you won on a particular case, that does not mean that you're scot-free from now on with all your preferences.
One has to look no further than Donald Trump for an example of someone who wants his preferred tribalism to prevail against coordinated tribalism. But even there he couldn't care less about his tribe (base), it's about his private preferences. Ultimately, he and those who think in those terms will fail simply because the stakes are way too high for the larger coordination to allow personal preferences to dominate. If that were allowed, then everyone from extreme left to extreme right would find themselves in a lose/lose situation. You won't find many lawyers - if any - who will do pro bono work on that.
Del Ivers wrote:Prismatic
“I don’t think our present conditions can exist in terms of fiscal and monetary policy and various other elements across the political landscape,” he said. “I think it will change, I don’t know when, or to what degree. But I don’t think this can be done without leading to other things.” Warren Buffet
"Leading to other things" is Buffet's way of courteously saying that things could get really screwed.
I've lived through several presidential administrations. Blips and bumps in the economy are nothing new. The public is generally fickle, of short memory, and gullibly think that an increase of percentage points in the tenths means that happy days are here again. If you know Trump's business record and personal history, which I have known for a long time, you'd know that he's an outright con man. If that were not the case then his business record would not be as sketchy as it has been proven to be. "The Art of The Deal" for Trump is make the deal and if any problems arise then declare bankruptcy and/or get the lawyers to handle it. Look at what's happening to him currently and how everything is about lawyers buffering him. It's classic Trump.
As for Obama, people conveniently forget the economic crash of 2008 and Obama's part in recovery for the country. What a nice little task to deal with as you begin your presidency. Furthermore, a lot of what Trump claims as his achievements are effects that came over from Obama's time. I could go on and on but by now I figure that if people are so gullible and to believe in Trump enough for a second term, then they deserve to be right up to the front of the fan when the crap hits the other side of it.
Also, read, 5 things to know about the US economy during Trump’s State of the Union" from February 5, 2019.
But if you want to know what Trump is really about, then read, This guy doesn’t know anything’: the inside story of Trump’s shambolic transition team.
Here's an excerpt in Trump's own words: "Fuck the law. I don’t give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money." That's Trump not just in the context of the article, but in the context of everything in his life.
To Gloominary: Please excuse my digression but anyone trying to defend Trump to me is on a hopeless crusade. And Prismatic, I know you were just making an observation so I'm not singling you out.
Trump is older than me but we were both young when I was growing up in NYC. I know precisely what kind of a person he is, and I'm being generous when I say, 'person'.
So, we were talking about normative ethics . . . .
Prismatic567 wrote:The degree of the cognitive dissonance is very great, thus the sustain evil and violent reactions from his opponents to soothe the pains from the derangements.
Prismatic567 wrote:..most foreigners are exposed to very bias attacked on Trump from the left inclined media, e.g. CNN, WaPo, MNSBC, NBC and others. Because of that most foreigners have a very bad impression of Trump but without the cognitive dissonance and the Trump Derangement Syndrome as most Democrats has in the USA.
Prismatic567 wrote:I am tuned to more objective, rational and philosophical, thus my being objective in assessment of Trump in terms of his present [not past] performance.
Prismatic567 wrote:What is most critical for me in Trump's performance is his strategy against the evil potential of malignant Islam. In Obama's term, the sleepers of Islam had already penetrated into the White House. This is a very threat for humanity, not just the USA.
Prismatic567 wrote:..but it could have gotten worse subsequently with manufacturing companies abandoning the US for cheaper labor outside the country, thus losing more jobs. That Trump could continue to sustain and then accelerate the economy with effective strategies to such heights we see today, we need to give him the credit for it.
Prismatic567 wrote:I am hoping in the near future someone will carry out the same strategy for the USA like Trump but without his warts [narcissistic, psychopath to some degree, ego-maniac, boaster, insecurities, low self esteem, etc.].
Anyway, that's it for my political perspectives. You and others can have the last word.
Separating innocent, immigrant children from their parents and putting them in cages, now THAT is evil, violent, and deranged. And please, don't justify it to me with any talking points on immigration.
Del Ivers wrote:Prismatic, thank you for an invigorating interlude. It reminds me of the days years ago when in high school and college I enjoyed shooting down political errancy of one form or another. But you know, life moves on and so as the lyrics say, "I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now".
Anyway, that's it for my political perspectives. You and others can have the last word.
Jakob wrote:Trump killed isis in the ME.
The term 'mutual' sounds agreeable. Maybe it is optimal at present but it is not universal in the longer run into the future.
However your basis provide room the the evil prone [significant %*] of one group [your fellows] and the others to express their unmodulated primal instinct of 'us versus them' which will manifest into evil and violent acts.
* a small % say 10% of 1 million people is 100,000 evil prone people. Note the significant quantum from a small % if the group is 100 million or in term of billion.
What humanity need to strive for[toward the future] is Team Humanity, where everyone is a member of Team Humanity, such that when faced with the greatest threat of the extermination of the human species [note the recent talk of such threat from rogue asteriod or meteor from outer space] we will act as ONE, i.e. Team Humanity to deal with such a potential threat.
Closer at hand, the extermination of the human species could come from some undeterred [no respect for M.A.D] religious groups when they get access to cheap WMDs [nukes and biological].
Gloominary wrote:@PrismaticThe term 'mutual' sounds agreeable. Maybe it is optimal at present but it is not universal in the longer run into the future.
However your basis provide room the the evil prone [significant %*] of one group [your fellows] and the others to express their unmodulated primal instinct of 'us versus them' which will manifest into evil and violent acts.
* a small % say 10% of 1 million people is 100,000 evil prone people. Note the significant quantum from a small % if the group is 100 million or in term of billion.
What humanity need to strive for[toward the future] is Team Humanity, where everyone is a member of Team Humanity, such that when faced with the greatest threat of the extermination of the human species [note the recent talk of such threat from rogue asteriod or meteor from outer space] we will act as ONE, i.e. Team Humanity to deal with such a potential threat.
Closer at hand, the extermination of the human species could come from some undeterred [no respect for M.A.D] religious groups when they get access to cheap WMDs [nukes and biological].
Do you think humanism is objectively superior to egoism, familialism and ethnocentrism, and if so, in what respect, or is humanism just what you believe your preference is?
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider]