Normative Ethics

[Gloominary]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

Trump, what mess?
They should confiscate Obama's Nobel Peace Prize and give it to Trump.

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.

Sometimes, if we take a, little more for ourselves, friends and family when we have the opportunity, no one will notice, or even care, so long as their needs are met.
They'll expect it, they do the same thing when they have the opportunity.

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.

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.

You're thinking extremes, the kind of egoism, familialism and ethnocentrism I'm talking about, is commonplace.

[Gloominary]

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.

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.

[thinkdr]

As pointed out on pp. 9-12 of Katz - Living Well [the third selection listed below], both Virtue Theory and some forms of Deontology recommend that one look out for one's family, and close circle of friends and neighbors, first and foremost. Yet they offer so much more substance by way of an ethical theory.

The arguments for Consequentialism are very convincing also. The latter claims that wise social policies will make life better for everyone all-around, even for the super-rich, the billionaires ...to whom most of the money flows lately ...they too will benefit if we have less stark, extreme poverty - treat children better, cease to penalize people for wanting education beyond high school (by putting them in debt financially.)

I agree with Prismatics that you need to develop your theory more fully - before it can even be called "a theory." ... Why not consider embracing the Unified Theory of Ethics proposed by R.S. Hartman and M. C. Katz?. It has been tentatively offered until something better comes along. It incorporates within itself all the other prominent theories, including Dr. Appiah's Cosmopolitanism, Zen ethics, and all three major academic schools usually taught in college classes: we need all! of their best insights

[Prismatic567]

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.

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].

[Karpel Tunnel]

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 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.

1) In the background to this, I might have more abstract goals. IOW I will tend to root for and even strive for decent treatment of people in a general way, even though I could, I suppose, spend that time focusing just on my near and dear. I haven't had some activist or especially active political life, but still in discussions and in organizations where I have worked and even online, I put some effort into generalized fairness or decent treatement, when I could just and always focus on my people, so to speak.

Abuses of power bother me, even if I may not be on the bad end of them. (abuses of those without much power can also bother me, but these tend to be punished by power, and further they just bother me less.)

2) I think as part of this latter, I am always wary of being told who my people are and when we are at odds with other people. IOW while I share your priorities, I want to immediately notice how the powerful tend to use this. On a simple level when they tell me our nation should go to war, but it can include all sorts of less dramatic creations of us/them battles. I tend to think the whole Republican vs. Democrat is a lovely good cop bad cop thing with this kind of manipulation.

So I am saying that while I prioritize my closest, I am also hyperaware of how this gets used, and even if it does not get used against me on some particular issue - I may put some energy in there because I hate con games of all kinds, especially when it is real superplayers who just want more. The guys with a fixed card thingie on a cardboard box on the corner might bug me, but they'll be lucky to pay the bills off that one.

Of course, the powers that be can also tell me that I am evil if I engage in prioritizing those I love most. And I am wary of this also. When people with incredible power come to tell me I need to do X, so that everything is good or fair, I am also skeptical. Their I, me, mine is likely lurking in there is my default reaction.

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.

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.

Another way to put this is I think big power gets a lot of mileage on making me think I have to choose between my ingroup and other groups for the benefit of bit power. They want Zero Sum game thinking.

This is complicated by more lefty types of abuse of power, where it seems like we are helping all in groups, but actually what is happening is a spreading of surveillance, control, rules and centralization of power in other abusives ways.

I got no simple answers.

I jsut want to say that propaganda can really abuse to all our detriment how and when we decide now is a time I must focus on my group and ignore the needs of the other groups.

And then in reaction to myself I need to add, this can play the other way, where supposedly loving ideas about inclusion, can actually be about power consolidating itself. And it ain't easy to know the difference.

I do want to say that it isn't just us/them or even us/thems.

I see the world as more like us/us/us/.....(etc)/THEM

[Del Ivers]

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.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

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).

[Gloominary]

@thinkdr

Why not consider embracing the Unified Theory of Ethics proposed by R.S. Hartman and M. C. Katz?.

I have no interest in aping someone else's thought wholesale.
I have my own way of seeing things.

[thinkdr]

Hi

Yes, "embracing" was a poor choice of words. I meant to say "examining."
I commend you for not "aping." Never wanted you to do that.

What I do suggest, for everyone, is: improving upon it. Or upgrading it. For it does provide a foundation on which to build -- improving it perhaps by defining more terms of relevance, defining them in an exact, logical manner - so that these concepts can be integrated into this theory ...or any comprehensive Ethical Theory.

[Prismatic567]

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.

As I had mentioned Gloominary's 'win-win' will not be effective in the future, i.e. it may be optimal at present based on the current circumstances.

I am not an American. Whilst I noted Trump has his negatives, his approach is optimal for the current conditions within the USA and the World. His performance [especially the economy] to date speak for itself. From an outsider's POV I noted the USA has become spineless under Obama, loss mine and many others' respect.
In the present conditions of the world, I believe each nation must take care of itself before it can give reasonable consideration to others. What I agree most with Trump is his raising a mental wall against the intrusion of the ideology of Islam within the US government and around the world.

Note the obvious with the presence of evil inherent in the ideology of Islam as with the two freshman Muslim congresswoman. Given an inch these two had already created so much havoc in support of Islam's mission. Just imagine if there are more Muslims in congress and within the population. Note the recognized and common saying [as supported by evidence], when in minority they [the zealot Muslims] will share with you, but when in majority and power, they will eat you up!

For the mission of perpetual and sustainable peace for humanity for the long run, we need to strive for Team Humanity as ONE in terms of morality and ethics. There should be no room and no possibility [as managed] for a tribalistic 'us versus them' fervor.

[Del Ivers]

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]

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 . . . .

One point is being a foreigner [btw not a conservative] I can be more objective in deliberating on the performance of Trump plus his warts [narcissistic, psychopath to some degree, ego-maniac, boaster, etc.].

On the other hand a American democrat's [or even a Republican's] assessment of Trump is more likely to be emotional, psychological and subjective.
In addition there is the real cognitive dissonance and the Trump Derangement Syndrome. The left going crazy is like football and other sport crazy fans going on violent rampage after their team lost the game arising from their cognitive dissonance that their team is a winner in their mind but the reality that their team lost, thus the rampages to deal with the dissonance. Many in the left are now an unruly mob bent to the extreme of violence [note Antifa].

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.

Btw, 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.

In addition, having participating in philosophical forum for so long, 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.

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.

Perhaps it is true there was a rise in the economy before Obama left, 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.

I believe the win-win moral strategy of Trump is optimal [normative] for the current conditions in the USA and the world but it should not be sustained permanently into the future.

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.].

[Del Ivers]

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.

The degree of cognition on the part of Trump's base is very, low. And your melodramatic casting of Trump opponents as evil, violent people who are soothing their pains is, with all due respect, ridiculous. When Bush was in office they spoke of Bush Derangement Syndrome. When Obama was in office they spoke of Obama Derangement Syndrome. When previous presidents were in office there were always those who considered the reactions of the opposition as deranged. It's merely another political label for 'craziness'. 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.

..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.

The previous paragraph can serve as the same answer here. But I will add that it's foolish to think that all information about Trump from the media outlets you mentioned is biased. That's a bias in itself on the part of those who think such. Would a Special Counsel to investigate Trump have been appointed because of a mere bias? Is it a bias to want to know the truth about Trump's ethics re his financial history and associations with foreign governments especially when he is the president of this country? If it had not been for the free press, warts and all, then the U.S. would long ago have collapsed from political gangsterism. Why do you think Trump made an enemy of the media early on his campaign? He knew he could psychologically control his supporters with lies, with 'alternative' facts, he knew that the media threatened that with real facts. If that had not been the case then he would have been an open book with regard to any investigations of him and would have allowed the allowed the media to collapse on its own. But Trump is desperate to keep the book shut on anyone and anything that exposes the truth of the matter. The truth is not profitable for Trump.

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.

That is disregarding the relationship of cause to effect. I seriously doubt that in all your personal endeavors where complications arose you ignored the cause of them.

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.

Yes, I'm sure that when Trump converses with Mohammad Bin Salman Al Saud that's the main topic that's brought up.

The Islamic situation, and due to the number of its adherents, is a problem that will continue to be dealt with long after Trump has left the building. A problem like that takes generations to resolve.

..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.

The Companies Offshoring Jobs at a Record Pace Under Trump

The only thing I give bad credit to Trump for is cooking the books. Something he's had a lot of experience doing in all his business endeavors.

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.].

A better strategy. As for the rest, we are in complete agreement. Unless of course you regard me as one of the deranged. I can live with that, if it's in the service of 'We the People' - here and around the world.

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.

[WendyDarling]

Del Ivers wrote

Anyway, that's it for my political perspectives. You and others can have the last word.

As one of the others, I will have a few if not many last words.

Del Ivers wrote

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.

Everyone who's malignant is always fact checking Trump or cheering for those who fact check Trump, breathlessly awaiting reports of Trump's lies. He hasn't lied about very much unless you count context and word changes made by the press in regards to what he said. When the press pulls a phrase out of context or changes a word or two then the truth is lost, yes, but Trump gets blamed, not the press who pulled a fast one.

All the images of immigrant children in cages the media played were actually taken during the Obama administration and the entire separation policy was put into effect during Obama's reign. Trump's administration only separated children from the adults who could not prove that the child was theirs with paperwork like birth certificates and such. Obviously, the fake news did not divulge that the children in cages images were stock footage taken from the previous presidency or the fact that the policy originated with Obama.

I have a lot more to say (but this site times out when you type as slow as I do), however if you wanted the truth you would not have taken the lying liberal leftist media's word for it.

Sorry Gloom for getting off topic. Sick and tired of the Trump slammers who refuse to know shit from shinola.

[Prismatic567]

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.

Continue in the Political section in a new thread;
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=194957

[Del Ivers]

Prismatic

That a mention or two of politics may be necessary or caused by some philosophical inquiry is okay. But I have no interest in rehashing politics, especially Trumpian politics. As I previously said, anyone trying to justify Trump to me is on a hopeless crusade.

This is not only about Trump, it is about politics in general. I already had my experience in political forums some time back. Apart from the players changing, the milieu is the same with people trying to prove their positions based on interpretations rather than any real and factual proximity to the actuality of whichever matter.

There's already enough to actually deal with currently with government and society than having to deal with in forum discussions which usually devolve to invectives whether stated or implied.

But I will answer one of your statements in the new topic: "I noted your views are rather emotional and psychological, i.e. not objective and rational."

I am not the one who felt an urgent need to make an entirely new topic on the matter.

Nonetheless, thank you for the invite. No doubt others will like to join you in the new topic.

[Jakob]

Trump killed isis in the ME.
Anyone trying to see him as less than excellent is a bad person.

[thinkdr]

Trump killed isis in the ME.

The fact is that ISIS is alive and well in the Middle East: It is thriving in parts of Iraq and Syria. It also is active in Africa, and is underground in Sri Lanka and in parts of India.
It's false to claim it has been "killed."

Also, since Trump assumed the Presidency ISIS has new competitors who push for both the concepts of guerilla warfare and of Sharia Law, but many, many Moslems resist living under Sharia Law.

Once someone knows their ethics they will instantly recognize Trump for what he is.


If you met someone who is a slick con-artist, a racketeer, a grifter, a frequent liar, someone who had authoritarian tendencies, who could not accept responsibility and was always looking for someone else to blame if anything goes wrong, and is an extreme narcissist, wouldn't you diagnose him as having a malignant personality disorder?

[WendyDarling]

Isis is thriving in which parts of Iraq and Syria? As far as I know Africa, Sri Lanka, and India are not in the Middle East which was the claim.

[Gloominary]

@Prismatic

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].

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?

[Gloominary]

While me, my friends and family are more valuable to me than others, how many others?
While my race is more valuable to me than another race, is my race more valuable to me than every other race taken together?
While my species is more valuable to me than another species, is my species more valuable to me than every other species taken together?
I'm not sure how I feel about such things.

[Prismatic567]

@Prismatic

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].

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?

My focus is on Team Humanity not on 'humanism' as it is understood at present. I do agree with many aspect of 'Humanism' as defined at present but not totally.
The limitation is the current ideology of Humanism focus on human beings as individuals and in loose groups but not in the sense of a 'Team'.

A 'team' is generally defined as;

"[a] team is a group of people who are interdependent with respect to information, resources, and skills and who seek to combine their efforts to achieve a common goal"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team

In the case of Team Humanity, the team comprised on every individual humans on Earth [or in space] aligned to common goals with the best of their ability.

Note I mentioned such a Team Humanity is not efficient in the present circumstances but I am confident it is possible in the future.

Actually it is possible to sense such a possibility of Team Humanity. For if suddenly the astronomers discovered a rogue asteroid the size of the USA heading towards Earth and which could split the Earth into pieces, such knowledge if announced to the world will definitely trigger a sense of Team Humanity to try to work as one to save the Earth and the humans therein. Unfortunately having a sense of Team Humanity out of emergency is not the way to go and in addition this is not sustainable if the asteroid missed Earth.

To strive toward achieving, maintaining and sustaining Team Humanity, a lot of strategies and processes need to be done and I think they are feasible given the trend of the current exponential expansion of knowledge and technology [esp IT and AI].

Here are some of the targets that need to be achieved for the average human being;

If the average IQ at present is 100, then we need to increase to 150, 200, 250 incrementally over a certain period of time.

It the same for emotional intelligence [EQ], if the average is 100, then we have to increase to 500, 600, 1000 over a certain period.

It is also the same for other human quotients, e.g. spirituality [SQ], rationality, wisdom [QWQ], morality [MQ], ethical philosophy [PQ], teambuilding [TQ] and various quotients where we need to increase the average by at least 3-5 folds.

We have already has a trend of increments for the above average quotients if compared to 1000 years ago, so it is possible to achieve the targets above given the current knowledge and technological advances.

Once the there is an increasing trend for the various quotients, then there will emerge Team Humanity spontaneously with continual increments.

Note if the average theoretical and practical philosophical quotient including morality and ethics is increased by 1000%, then we can ensure the strategies will be fool proof against evil and will be continually optimized.

In the above sense, yes, Team Humanity [with subset humanism] will be objectively superior to egoism, familialism and ethnocentrism.

Btw, Team Humanity must not survive at the expense of other living things since all living things are interdependently connected to all.

We can rely on thinkdr and Dr. Hartman's axiology to provide the objective measures in terms of quantified values on the above.