Do you want justice? Do you want things to be brought into balance?
If you want that you need to live an ethical life -- and help others to do so too: work to eliminate hunger, to empower people from the bottom up, enable them to have a minimum level of comfort and security. In that way you will be insuring your own security. For they’ll then be less likely to riot and loot, to annoy you as they beg you for (at least) some crumbs. So it's in your best interest. Isn’t that true?
Ethics teaches us to minimize suffering and to maximize well-being. It shows the way to a high-quality life for all the world’s people. It includes justice; benevolence; and the moral courage to implement them, to put them into practice. Everyone should have the opportunity to better themselves, to have free higher education if they’re ready for it, …especially an education in Ethics. Everything should be done in the most efficient way possible.
Do you know the difference between “efficiency” and “effectiveness”? To be efficient is to use least resources, time, motion, and energy, to achieve the most output; to do the most with the least.
To be effective is to arrange things so that all that is done and produced is employed toward the goal of maximizing quality of life, not just for some, but for all. It is to add value to each situation in which you find yourself. It is to uplift, to boost, to enhance the individuals with whom you interact. You do this by showing respect, civility, courtesy, giving them acknowledgement and recognition, bestowing a sincere compliment, an act of kindness that they appreciate, making them smile, seeing how you can be of service – because that’s the kind of person you are. Ethics is about being willing to take on some responsibility. It is knowing what is in your enlightened self-interest. It is being rational: having good reasons for whatever you do. …Not rationalizations; reasons. Ethics is about adding value. Let’s keep that in mind. Let’s be mindful.
Justice, stability, harmony requires that we cooperate – to solve pressing problems.
Applying Ethics to government systems: Some U.S. governors have figured out how to solve problems using Ethical means and principles in their own state. Also Finland does it. Canada does it (but not on the government level currently.) Norway does it. Why don’t we learn? Why can’t we elect to office people who put ethical principles above other priorities. Why is the federal government in the USA dysfunctional? Can anyone here explain why?
And can you offer constructive suggestions and alternatives?
A Concise Summary of what Ethics is about
Re: A Concise Summary of what Ethics is about
Everything you say sounds good but why is the last paragraph so vague ?
What are the achievements of the state governors that you have in mind and that Mr Obama does not copy on the federal level ?
What are the achievements of the state governors that you have in mind and that Mr Obama does not copy on the federal level ?
Re: A Concise Summary of what Ethics is about
Greetings, duszek
Those are good questions.
I do not have an answer for you. I am confident that there will be some bold proposals, of a progressive, populist nature, coming from the federal level this year. When I listen to discussions of the National Governors Association proceedings, I note some creative innovations at the state level, but I did not make notes, so I cannot recall them. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. More research will be necessary.
Some wise men I have conversed with lately predict that within two decades the U.S. will regain the prestige it once had in the world as a place that knows what it's doing, is prospering and providing for the General Welfare (as in the preamble to its Constitution.) Others I talk to say that the system has become too complex, too "topheavy", so to speak, and will collapse of its own weight. They point to the gridlock in Congress, the interest on the ever-increasing national debt, stagflation at the same time as signs of deflation, nothing being done about Global Climate Change which has by now gone too far to stop it, the displacement of workers' jobs by robots and automation, and by outsourcing, thereby bringing the standard of living down to the lowest denominator determined by cheap labor overseas, the common pperson's preoccupation with trivia, the level of palpable ignorance, etc., etc.
Yet, I see so many trends where I can feel that Ethics is catching on. Some of these are presented periodically in e-zines such as The Optimists Magazine, and Yes, Magazine, both available free online. Some sites list the best places to work and give the criteria as to how the rankings were done.
And You Tube has B. J. Thomas, with a chorus of kids, singing "Using Things and Loving People" - which one may type into the search box to hear it - a song that teaches some ethical concepts to little children. There should be more of that
It would be preferable for more of the popular singing stars to do the same.
Those are good questions.
I do not have an answer for you. I am confident that there will be some bold proposals, of a progressive, populist nature, coming from the federal level this year. When I listen to discussions of the National Governors Association proceedings, I note some creative innovations at the state level, but I did not make notes, so I cannot recall them. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. More research will be necessary.
Some wise men I have conversed with lately predict that within two decades the U.S. will regain the prestige it once had in the world as a place that knows what it's doing, is prospering and providing for the General Welfare (as in the preamble to its Constitution.) Others I talk to say that the system has become too complex, too "topheavy", so to speak, and will collapse of its own weight. They point to the gridlock in Congress, the interest on the ever-increasing national debt, stagflation at the same time as signs of deflation, nothing being done about Global Climate Change which has by now gone too far to stop it, the displacement of workers' jobs by robots and automation, and by outsourcing, thereby bringing the standard of living down to the lowest denominator determined by cheap labor overseas, the common pperson's preoccupation with trivia, the level of palpable ignorance, etc., etc.
Yet, I see so many trends where I can feel that Ethics is catching on. Some of these are presented periodically in e-zines such as The Optimists Magazine, and Yes, Magazine, both available free online. Some sites list the best places to work and give the criteria as to how the rankings were done.
And You Tube has B. J. Thomas, with a chorus of kids, singing "Using Things and Loving People" - which one may type into the search box to hear it - a song that teaches some ethical concepts to little children. There should be more of that
It would be preferable for more of the popular singing stars to do the same.Re: A Concise Summary of what Ethics is about
Ethics according to who? Many times there's a difference between what's ethical and what's legal.prof wrote: Applying Ethics to government systems: Some U.S. governors have figured out how to solve problems using Ethical means and principles in their own state. Also Finland does it. Canada does it (but not on the government level currently.) Norway does it. Why don’t we learn? Why can’t we elect to office people who put ethical principles above other priorities. Why is the federal government in the USA dysfunctional? Can anyone here explain why?
Re: A Concise Summary of what Ethics is about
According to the system given in the links offered in the original post here:John K wrote:Ethics according to who? ...
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9512
Note that the links at the end of that post refer to essays that are more recent than the College Course booklet. Also see: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9409
This system is a new paradigm for ethics theory. It is (very concisely) summarized in the o..p. of this current thread - in the paragraphs before the one you quoted.
The new paradigm defines some of its key terms, defining them by means of the meta-ethics, which is formal axiology. This latter has its critics ... including yours truly, but note that critics are to a creator as fleas are to a dog. No monument has ever been erected to a critic. 
The project to construct a superior theory of Ethics is an open source project which welcomes your contributions to upgrade and improve upon it. I believe Spike has something to offer. I like what he writes throughout this thread here:viewtopic.php?f=23&t=10045 about how cultural evolution has occurred, how mankind has progressed through the centuries, becoming more ethical in the process.
Re: A Concise Summary of what Ethics is about
When giving a summary of what Ethics is about it would be helpful to note what the science of Biology has to tell us about human relations and ethics:
Biological science studies (among other things such as genetics and the varieties of life forms) how the human species evolved and adapted to its habitat. It discovered that by cooperating and collaborating humans managed to evolve to the present time rather than becoming extinct. Over time the human brain developed nerve connections that remind us to cooperate. Biologists, and Psychologists, speak of this as our 'moral sense.' Brain Neurologists have discovered that we are pre-wired to have a moral sense. In Ethics this is known as the conscience.
If we listen to it we will cooperate more, and thus we will get more benefits. Science explains all this to us. The branch of moral philosophy known as Ethics, in a recent update of it by R. S. Hartman and M. C. Katz,, teaches us that our ultimate purpose is to provide well-being for all members of the species. Fulfilling this purpose both facilitates cooperation and, in turn, cooperation helps us achieve a quality life, a life full of value, for one and all. Hence we find that there is no conflict between Ethics and science.
In fact, historically philosophy has been "the mother of science" giving birth to new sciences. For when the vague, ambiguous, words of philosophy are sufficiently sharpened up, when they become more exact, they become terms in a network of related concepts which serve to explain and order the relevant empirical data. The data gets organized by the scientific system. This can occur in Ethics. It can evolve in clarity until it itself constitutes a new scientific theory. This will happen when its key terms are well-defined and are all related to each other. Good philosophy eventually ushers in good science. Alchemy became Chemistry. Natural Philosophy became Physical Science. Philosophy of Mind helped give birth to Psychology (the Science of Behavior.) Etc.
Some of the data of Ethics are acts of altruism, of kindness, of compassion, of reverence and respect. Instances of appreciation, rescue, rehabilitation, heroism, empathy, moral courage, whistle-blowing, authenticity, fairness, justice, peace-making, etc. are also empirical data relevant to Ethics. These need to be ordered and explained; a new paradigm, a good frame of reference can do it. See http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf
Let us get to work and accomplish this. Then we will see new ethical technologies resulting - such as, for example, a proliferation of workers cooperatives - which will make our lives morally better. {You may want to read the article on Workers Cooperatives in Wiki. It turns out that there are thousands of them in the world now.} They are models of Applied Ethics. They are precursors of the economy that would prevail in an ethical world.
Isn't a quality life what we really want?
See LIVING THE GOOD LIFE http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... _Lifef.pdf
Biological science studies (among other things such as genetics and the varieties of life forms) how the human species evolved and adapted to its habitat. It discovered that by cooperating and collaborating humans managed to evolve to the present time rather than becoming extinct. Over time the human brain developed nerve connections that remind us to cooperate. Biologists, and Psychologists, speak of this as our 'moral sense.' Brain Neurologists have discovered that we are pre-wired to have a moral sense. In Ethics this is known as the conscience.
If we listen to it we will cooperate more, and thus we will get more benefits. Science explains all this to us. The branch of moral philosophy known as Ethics, in a recent update of it by R. S. Hartman and M. C. Katz,, teaches us that our ultimate purpose is to provide well-being for all members of the species. Fulfilling this purpose both facilitates cooperation and, in turn, cooperation helps us achieve a quality life, a life full of value, for one and all. Hence we find that there is no conflict between Ethics and science.
In fact, historically philosophy has been "the mother of science" giving birth to new sciences. For when the vague, ambiguous, words of philosophy are sufficiently sharpened up, when they become more exact, they become terms in a network of related concepts which serve to explain and order the relevant empirical data. The data gets organized by the scientific system. This can occur in Ethics. It can evolve in clarity until it itself constitutes a new scientific theory. This will happen when its key terms are well-defined and are all related to each other. Good philosophy eventually ushers in good science. Alchemy became Chemistry. Natural Philosophy became Physical Science. Philosophy of Mind helped give birth to Psychology (the Science of Behavior.) Etc.
Some of the data of Ethics are acts of altruism, of kindness, of compassion, of reverence and respect. Instances of appreciation, rescue, rehabilitation, heroism, empathy, moral courage, whistle-blowing, authenticity, fairness, justice, peace-making, etc. are also empirical data relevant to Ethics. These need to be ordered and explained; a new paradigm, a good frame of reference can do it. See http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf
Let us get to work and accomplish this. Then we will see new ethical technologies resulting - such as, for example, a proliferation of workers cooperatives - which will make our lives morally better. {You may want to read the article on Workers Cooperatives in Wiki. It turns out that there are thousands of them in the world now.} They are models of Applied Ethics. They are precursors of the economy that would prevail in an ethical world.
Isn't a quality life what we really want?
See LIVING THE GOOD LIFE http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... _Lifef.pdf
Re: A Concise Summary of what Ethics is about
A propos of what I have just written above, we note this dialog taking place between Sam Harris and Michael Shermer, two contemporary writers in the field of ethics:
"Harris: You appear to believe, as I do, that morality can (and should) arise out of a concern for the well-being of conscious creatures. But this normative claim is distinct from an evolutionary account of how we came to have moral emotions and preferences in the first place. It seems to me that there are two worthy, but distinct, scientific projects: (1) understanding how we got here and (2) understanding how to maximize our well-being going forward. Both projects are based on facts—facts about how we evolved, and facts about how conscious minds like our own can flourish in this universe. I’m wondering if you agree with this distinction and whether you have any further thoughts about the role science can play in deciding questions of right and wrong and good and evil.
Shermer: The criterion I use—inspired by your starting point in The Moral Landscape of “the well-being of conscious creatures”—is “the survival and flourishing of sentient beings.” By survival I mean the instinct to live, and by flourishing I mean having adequate sustenance, safety, shelter, bonding, and social relations for physical and mental health. I am trying to make an evolutionary/biological case for starting here by arguing that any organism subject to natural selection—which includes all organisms on this planet and most likely on any other planet as well—will by necessity have this drive to survive and flourish. If it didn’t, it would not live long enough to reproduce and would therefore not be subject to natural selection.
By sentient I mean emotive, perceptive, sensitive, responsive, conscious, and therefore able to feel and to suffer. Here I’m following the argument made by Jeremy Bentham with regard to animals: It isn’t their intelligence, language, tool use, or reasoning power that should elicit our moral concerns, but their capacity to feel and suffer. To this I add the recent Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness—issued by an international group of prominent cognitive neuroscientists, neuropharmacologists, neuroanatomists, and computational neuroscientists—that there is continuity between humans and non-human animals, and that sentience is the common characteristic across species.
When I talk about a moral arc of progress, I mean an improvement in the survival and flourishing of individual sentient beings. I emphasize the individual for four reasons: (1) Natural selection operates on individual organisms, not groups (see Steven Pinker’s dismantling of group selection arguments here.). (2) It is the individual who is the primary moral agent—not the group, tribe, race, gender, state, nation, empire, society, or any other collective—because it is the individual who survives and flourishes, or who suffers and dies. It is individual sentient beings who perceive, emote, respond, love, feel, and suffer—not populations, races, genders, groups, or nations. (3) Historically, immoral abuses have been most rampant, and body counts have run the highest, when the individual is sacrificed for the good of the group. It happens when people are judged by the color of their skin—or by their X/Y chromosomes, or by whom they prefer to sleep with, or by what accent they speak with, or by which political or religious group they belong to, or by any other trait our species has chosen to differentiate among members—instead of by the content of their individual character. (4) The rights revolutions of the past two centuries have focused almost entirely on the freedom and autonomy of individuals, not collectives—on the rights of persons, not groups. Individuals vote, not races or genders. Individuals want to be treated equally, not races. Rights protect individuals, not groups; in fact, most rights (such as those enumerated in the Bill of Rights) protect individuals from being discriminated against as members of a group, such as by race, creed, color, gender, or—soon—sexual orientation and gender preference....."
It appears, thus, that the new modern perspective on Ethics that I have put forth, the Hartman/Katz viewpoint, which establishes Ethics on a secular basis, is supported by authors of prestige and wide respect. I welcome this confirmation !!
Once we know our self-interest clearly-enough to see that we need to Intrinsically-value conscious human individuals, that caring is crucial, we then turn to science to learn how this is best done.
Please add your comments............
"Harris: You appear to believe, as I do, that morality can (and should) arise out of a concern for the well-being of conscious creatures. But this normative claim is distinct from an evolutionary account of how we came to have moral emotions and preferences in the first place. It seems to me that there are two worthy, but distinct, scientific projects: (1) understanding how we got here and (2) understanding how to maximize our well-being going forward. Both projects are based on facts—facts about how we evolved, and facts about how conscious minds like our own can flourish in this universe. I’m wondering if you agree with this distinction and whether you have any further thoughts about the role science can play in deciding questions of right and wrong and good and evil.
Shermer: The criterion I use—inspired by your starting point in The Moral Landscape of “the well-being of conscious creatures”—is “the survival and flourishing of sentient beings.” By survival I mean the instinct to live, and by flourishing I mean having adequate sustenance, safety, shelter, bonding, and social relations for physical and mental health. I am trying to make an evolutionary/biological case for starting here by arguing that any organism subject to natural selection—which includes all organisms on this planet and most likely on any other planet as well—will by necessity have this drive to survive and flourish. If it didn’t, it would not live long enough to reproduce and would therefore not be subject to natural selection.
By sentient I mean emotive, perceptive, sensitive, responsive, conscious, and therefore able to feel and to suffer. Here I’m following the argument made by Jeremy Bentham with regard to animals: It isn’t their intelligence, language, tool use, or reasoning power that should elicit our moral concerns, but their capacity to feel and suffer. To this I add the recent Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness—issued by an international group of prominent cognitive neuroscientists, neuropharmacologists, neuroanatomists, and computational neuroscientists—that there is continuity between humans and non-human animals, and that sentience is the common characteristic across species.
When I talk about a moral arc of progress, I mean an improvement in the survival and flourishing of individual sentient beings. I emphasize the individual for four reasons: (1) Natural selection operates on individual organisms, not groups (see Steven Pinker’s dismantling of group selection arguments here.). (2) It is the individual who is the primary moral agent—not the group, tribe, race, gender, state, nation, empire, society, or any other collective—because it is the individual who survives and flourishes, or who suffers and dies. It is individual sentient beings who perceive, emote, respond, love, feel, and suffer—not populations, races, genders, groups, or nations. (3) Historically, immoral abuses have been most rampant, and body counts have run the highest, when the individual is sacrificed for the good of the group. It happens when people are judged by the color of their skin—or by their X/Y chromosomes, or by whom they prefer to sleep with, or by what accent they speak with, or by which political or religious group they belong to, or by any other trait our species has chosen to differentiate among members—instead of by the content of their individual character. (4) The rights revolutions of the past two centuries have focused almost entirely on the freedom and autonomy of individuals, not collectives—on the rights of persons, not groups. Individuals vote, not races or genders. Individuals want to be treated equally, not races. Rights protect individuals, not groups; in fact, most rights (such as those enumerated in the Bill of Rights) protect individuals from being discriminated against as members of a group, such as by race, creed, color, gender, or—soon—sexual orientation and gender preference....."
It appears, thus, that the new modern perspective on Ethics that I have put forth, the Hartman/Katz viewpoint, which establishes Ethics on a secular basis, is supported by authors of prestige and wide respect. I welcome this confirmation !!
Once we know our self-interest clearly-enough to see that we need to Intrinsically-value conscious human individuals, that caring is crucial, we then turn to science to learn how this is best done.
Please add your comments............
Re: A Concise Summary of what Ethics is about
Here is some evidence to back up what I claim:duszek wrote:Everything you say sounds good but why is the last paragraph so vague ?
What are the achievements of the state governors that you have in mind and that Mr Obama does not copy on the federal level ?
http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/citie ... s-per-year
http://www.yesmagazine.org/commonomics/ ... ned-energy
http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/citie ... ive-cities
Click on those links for some very-creative ideas that a citizen can organize to attain in his/her own locality or state.