Historical Roots of the Science of Ethics

[prof]

Chaz,

In the original post I speak of brain neurology.

Yet you say "None of this is science."

Isn't brain neurology 'science'?


My question to you, a couple-of-osts ago, still stands:
What, to you, are the necessary components of science? What would it take for you to recognize one?

[chaz wyman]

Chaz,

In the original post I speak of brain neurology.

Yet you say "None of this is science."

Isn't brain neurology 'science'?


My question to you, a couple-of-osts ago, still stands:
What, to you, are the necessary components of science? What would it take for you to recognize one?

Neurology is not meaningfully related to ethics, any more than the chemical composition of the paint is meaningfully related to the Mona Lisa, or the constituents of the marble to a bust of Socrates; the density of the bronze to Rodin's The Thinker

[prof]

...Isn't brain neurology 'science'?

My question to you, a couple-of-osts ago, still stands:
What, to you, are the necessary components of science? What would it take for you to recognize one?

Neurology is not meaningfully related to ethics, ...

Chaz, my friend, you're mistaken about that. Demerest & Schoof, in the early pages of their book, ANSWERING THE CENTRAL QUESTION, show that neurology is related to ethics. The amygdala, a part of the brain , is related to loss of temper - which is related to character, to being in control of one's own self, to one's degree of morality (since we are to be nice to everybody if we want a high degree of it - and if we don't, we just don't understand our ethics.)

[Impenitent]

lobotomize those who cannot behave to this "new" dictatorial standard of "biological" ethics...

building a better human...

-Imp

[chaz wyman]

...Isn't brain neurology 'science'?

My question to you, a couple-of-osts ago, still stands:
What, to you, are the necessary components of science? What would it take for you to recognize one?

Neurology is not meaningfully related to ethics, ...

Chaz, my friend, you're mistaken about that. Demerest & Schoof, in the early pages of their book, ANSWERING THE CENTRAL QUESTION, show that neurology is related to ethics. The amygdala, a part of the brain , is related to loss of temper - which is related to character, to being in control of one's own self, to one's degree of morality (since we are to be nice to everybody if we want a high degree of it - and if we don't, we just don't understand our ethics.)

You are confusing "behaviour" and ethics. You are seriously confused. Have you ever been diagnosed with in the autistic spectrum or Asperger's syndrome?

Ethics is a cognitive scheme evolved and developed by experience with human society. It is extra-somatic and culturally defined. You can no more understand history, art, music or politics from looking at the brain than you can ethics.
There are good reasons why the 'humanities' are separate from science. When I love a person, it cannot be understood by neurones firing or hormones. If you think it can then you are a sado. People like you are a danger to the health of humanity.

[prof]

One's ethics results in conduct. If it didn't, then ethical theory - the topic of this forum - would be merely an academic intellectual game without relevance to practical life.

Conduct is a function of the health of the brain, and the brain's health in turn depends upon the over-all health of the body.

The evidence in the science of Brain Neurology is piling up that we can better comprehend an individual's morality by examining his brain. One can predict whether a person's judgment (including moral judgment) will be faulty or sound by observing whether certain parts of the brain are handicapped or not. Those who haven't kept up with the latest research in this field are left behind as to their awareness vs. their ignorance.

Getting panicky or violently angry are often lapses of consideration for others, for they are ego trips; anger is a self-centered demand that the universe be different (for the hot-tempered one) than it is. Panic is frequently undo paranoia and bad judgment. People of good character have serenity, inner peace, cosmic optimism, a problem-solving orientation, goal-directed behavior, high ideals, take on responsibility, and closely resemble what my late friend, Abe Maslow, described as "self-actualizing" individuals."

Above all, a person of good character wants to put people first. In his hierarchy of values people are higher than things, and things are above numbers, systems, codes, mores, etc. The common law ranks above statute law, and the moral law has a higher priority than common law. The individual of good character has a good sense of values.

Schweitzer taught us to have reverence for life; at least we can extend that to human life, and show that we care about our species, the individuals in it, and the restoration of the planet which is our home. Let's switch over to green energy, renewable energy, and thus conserve the atmosphere which we all breathe, and get an unlimited supply of pure water - not just for ourselves alone, but for everybody.

Sam Harris has argued convincingly that the separation between the sciences and the humanities is an artificial one.

I have given you something to think about. I'll stop here. If you enjoy further dialog, see the writings of M. C. Katz, to which hyperlinks were provided in some of my earlier posts. The Unified Theory of Ethics is in (literary) dialog form. It has four parts, the last three are rather brief.

[chaz wyman]

You can plead as much as you like, but your equating science and ethics has not produced one useful or insightful ethical position.
All you have done is to assert a few culturally defined platitudes, that any non science ethicist could achieve without really thinking things through properly.

[prof]

Here are the sources of research alluded to in the following discussion: http://www.npr.org/2012/05/01/151764534 ... bad-things

The latest research in the science of Moral Psychology reveals some interesting findings. We have to keep telling ourselves: “You know, friend, the first little transgression could lead to more; for it will become a habit, then a compulsion. Then it very well could become a massive ethical error. So don’t even start on the first little step to personal corruption."
Instead, I shall keep asking: "How can I give? How can I be of service? How am I able to pay off any debt I may have incurred? How can I continue to see the big picture, the implications my action may have? In short, how can I - here and now - maximize the value for the most people in my world?”

When adding value is constantly at the front of our minds we are less likely to lie or to cheat. That is a fact!

You are less likely to get corrupted because you will be asking of any decision you make: "Is this fair? Will people be hurt?" Etc. You will be unlikely to be asking: What will I gain (even if you lose)? You will think "we" instead of "me."

When your sole cognitive frame-of-mind is to make the best business decision (by today’s standards), you are likely to be blind to the ethical reverberations, and how it may eventually ruin your own life by corrupting you. [You may be saying to yourself: “Oh, it will never happen to me!!!” However, it can easily happen to any good person, if they are not aware …until the practice of adding value becomes a habit.]

From this research we learn to be aware that one lie – or one minor theft - leads to another lie – or a second petty swiping of someone’s property. One thing leads to another …this can’t be denied. That’s where awareness comes in handy. And so does knowledge – a knowledge of human psychology.

Now you know how corruption can be avoided. Teach it to your children. Teach it to any student willing to learn about human nature. Continue to appreciate the value of the Ethical life.


...And did you manage to view this 19-minute TED talk by Dr. Fuller given to students at U.C. Berkley: It's good! It will provoke reflection on ethics, theoretical and applied: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djM6cZb8kak&lr=1

This fellow is confirming my view that Ethics is catching on! With this TED talk presenting Bob Fuller, I believe the word is already out about the need to uphold dignity.

What do you say? Can you help make "rankism" a household word, a common expression.

[chaz wyman]

...And did you manage to view this 19-minute TED talk by Dr. Fuller given to students at U.C. Berkley: It's good! It will provoke reflection on ethics, theoretical and applied: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djM6cZb8kak&lr=1

This fellow is confirming my view that Ethics is catching on! With this TED talk presenting Bob Fuller, I believe the word is already out about the need to uphold dignity.

What do you say? Can you help make "rankism" a household word, a common expression.

It's hardly new, not original and has been talked about with far more insight from anthropologists, and political philosophers. His angle is just naive evolutionary psychology.

Oh- and it's not really science either.

[prof]

...[Y]our equating science and ethics has not produced one useful or insightful ethical position.
All you have done is to assert a few culturally defined platitudes, that any non science ethicist could achieve without really thinking things through properly.

I refer you to this thread here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10207
wherein I offer some theory, explain how I use the concept "morality", and show the relevance of the theory to life, when applied.

Also see the discussion on the second page of this thread: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9278
which also explains further the frame of reference that can easily be scientifically (empirically) tested to confirm its soundness.

Those analyses are hardly "platitudes."

Let's not talk past each other; let's employ words the same way - now that you understand what I mean by them.

Thank you.

[chaz wyman]

...[Y]our equating science and ethics has not produced one useful or insightful ethical position.
All you have done is to assert a few culturally defined platitudes, that any non science ethicist could achieve without really thinking things through properly.

I refer you to this thread here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10207
wherein I offer some theory, explain how I use the concept "morality", and show the relevance of the theory to life, when applied.

Also see the discussion on the second page of this thread: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9278
which also explains further the frame of reference that can easily be scientifically (empirically) tested to confirm its soundness.

Those analyses are hardly "platitudes."

Let's not talk past each other; let's employ words the same way - now that you understand what I mean by them.

Thank you.

Those 'analyses' are nothing but platitudes:

Platitude 1: how you treat yourself is as important as how you treat others.
Platitude 2: allow yourself to slip into some form of self-abuse, you are not in the strong position you would be if you did not;
Platitude 3: you can sit in a chair. This is useful.
Platitude 4: Anyone who commits crimes has a contradiction in his self-definition. (Except those that define themselves as criminals, obviously.)

None of which are remotely 'scientific'. QED: exactly what I said.

[prof]

...His angle is just ... psychology.

Oh- and it's not really science either.

If you tell a Psychologist that he is not a scientist he will just smile indulgently and go on doing what he does.


This thread is about the historical roots of a science which some reader of this will actually help to build. The day is coming when Ethics will be a science ...not a mere discussion or conversation among cultural relativists.

[lannartack shows promise; he has an understanding and an insight, and some of the necessary skills, to make a profound contribution to the advancement of knowledge. He writes: "If you reason about a moral problem rationally, qualitative variables can perfectly be described by quantitative variables and human reasoning by algebraic rules. In fact, we often already describe quality with numbers, like school grades. Quantification of quality is the first step in creating an objective way of looking at moral problems. The next step is to let a computer solve problems with our quantified variables."]

...Deep, but clear, thought. Profound.