Who decides what's morally right?

[prof]

Recently a philosophically-minded student wrote this:
"Ethics are described as a system of moral principles.

What is a principle? In science principles are not arbitrarily chosen. They are a explanation of how something functions.

Principles are how we do these things truthfully and choosing the right groupings of principles is how we do it well and morally. There are guidelines that explain the best way to lie, cheat, and even murder. These are not moral principles. Ethical principles underlie everything we do."

------


I agree with Alan Donagan, who in his book The Theory of Morality (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1977) argues that there is a coherent theory underlying the general moral outlook and behavior of all (normal) people, though it is not necessarily consciously expressed.

He explains that rules of ethics are not basic, nor are rights, or virtues. Instead these are all generated by a more fundamental assumption: persons are valuable in themselves.

Thus, the reason why murder is wrong has nothing to do with the maximization of happiness, much less the command of a deity, or the exercise of virtue, but the fact that murder results in the destruction of something intrinsically valuable, a human life.

----

In response to those who are impressed by the case for Cultural Relativism and why - they believe - this has to block progress in finding universal laws for Ethics, Dr. James Franklin,, Professor of Mathematics and Philosophy, has this to say:

"Mathematics makes a clear distinction between basic principles and the deductions made from them, or their consequences in different circumstances.

The mathematical laws of planetary motion are exactly the same for Mercury and the Moon, but the laws prescribe different orbits for the two bodies, since they are in different places and have different forces acting on them.

For the same reason, basic ethical principles of respect for persons will prescribe different actions and customs for a small tribe at subsistence level from those suitable for a complex welfare state.

Since the invariance and objectivity of basic ethical principles prescribes a diversity of outcomes, the onus is on someone arguing from cultural diversity to show that the observed diversity cannot be explained by the interaction of universal principles with diverse circumstances. As has been observed by several critics, that task has rarely been seriously attempted."

In the papers linked to below, I have striven to find some 'universal' principles for normal people all over the planet. They apply to every civilized individual: Know Yourself. Choose (to be) Yourself. Create (the talents and potentials within) Yourself. Give Yourself; (express your gifts, so as to: Minimize suffering. Maximize well-being and Quality of life (for all you can)). And thereby create value.

Here is how Dr. David Mefford explains what "value" is. I trust you will find it helpful. Give it your profound consideration:

"A value is the result of the brain's conversion of direct experience (immediate per-ception) into meaningful truth (a secondary judgment of con-ception). Value is, in general, the same as meaning, or rather, meaning confirmed and enhanced by emphasis. We structure meaning through emphasis. A person makes thousands of conscious and unconscious (conditioned) value judgments every moment, every hour and every day.

Value judgment is the primary human capacity that enables us to cope with our world - to survive and thrive in our society.

Values are a union of two major human capacities: rational cognition and emotional feelings, or attitudes, powered by emphasis. Consider the following formula in words as follows.

[value and valuation (by emphasis) = (Knowing + Feeling)]

When we value something, we use our knowledge of what it is and what it contains, plus how we feel about it - we like it or we do not like it - to some degree. In application to any given subject matter, values may be explained in the following statement.

Our values reveal the foundation of our characters, how we think and feel in the context of our roles in life and how we appreciate our own selves within the horizon of our life-world."

------


I wish for all of you a Quality Life.

And in doing so, I am looking out for my own Self-Interest.

For I regard you as my support team. Everyone has a contribution to make.

After you have read and studied the dialogs (to which you will finds links below - they are all PDF files, safe to open), let me know your impressions. I welcome suggestions for improvement and ideas as to how to upgrade the theory, tighten it up, enhance it. So please help the project out here. [The author.]

For the paper, LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, use this one:
http://tinyurl.com/28mtn56

For the booklet A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS, use
http://tinyurl.com/crz6xea

For the booklet ETHICAL ADVENTURES
http://tinyurl.com/38zfrh7


For the essay, ETHICAL EXPLORATIONS
http://tinyurl.com/22ohd2x


For the paper ASPECTS OF ETHICS
http://tinyurl.com/36u6gpo

[The Voice of Time]

"Mathematics makes a clear distinction between basic principles and the deductions made from them, or their consequences in different circumstances.

The mathematical laws of planetary motion are exactly the same for Mercury and the Moon, but the laws prescribe different orbits for the two bodies, since they are in different places and have different forces acting on them.

For the same reason, basic ethical principles of respect for persons will prescribe different actions and customs for a small tribe at subsistence level from those suitable for a complex welfare state.

Since the invariance and objectivity of basic ethical principles prescribes a diversity of outcomes, the onus is on someone arguing from cultural diversity to show that the observed diversity cannot be explained by the interaction of universal principles with diverse circumstances. As has been observed by several critics, that task has rarely been seriously attempted."

That is called a mathematical function. Input numbers for unknown variables and get outputs. Most people should know this if they ever went to school.

In the papers linked to below, I have striven to find some 'universal' principles for normal people all over the planet. They apply to every civilized individual: Know Yourself. Choose (to be) Yourself. Create (the talents and potentials within) Yourself. Give Yourself; (express your gifts, so as to: Minimize suffering. Maximize well-being and Quality of life (for all you can)). And thereby create value.

About the literal translation of this I would say "figure out the 4 principle defence mechanisms of Peter Wessel Zapffe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wess ... ontentions) and how to use them most effectively and you should be well on your way".

"A value is the result of the brain's conversion of direct experience (immediate per-ception) into meaningful truth (a secondary judgment of con-ception). Value is, in general, the same as meaning, or rather, meaning confirmed and enhanced by emphasis. We structure meaning through emphasis. A person makes thousands of conscious and unconscious (conditioned) value judgments every moment, every hour and every day.

This paragraph must have broken a thousand logical rules and makes no sense whatsoever. Every word you use is redirected to another word redirected in turn to another word without there being ever any clear meaning of anything.

[prof]

Hi, Voice of Time

You are right about the concept "function" (as used in Math and Logic.) Unfortunately most people do not know about this, though. ...even though they had some schooling.

If you would only read the papers by Katz to which links were given you would discover that P. W. Zapffe's 'Isolation mechanism' does not apply to the theory proposed. There are lots of mentions of, rather than "dismissal from consciousness of all disturbing thoughts ..." in that topics such as tyranny, immorality, greed, incest, crime, etc. are discussed - albeit briefly, as is fitting, considering today's short attention spans. {That's also why the Unified Theory is presented in four Parts rather than one long book.}

As you know Ethics covers so many topics; it is a vast field. Hence the theory is suggestive of the wide range, and the scope of this new (yet old) body of knowledge.

As to the paragraph by Dr. Mefford, it was written for lay persons, not for sophisticated minds like yours. His own work is highly formal and logical, and derives a table analogous to what Mendeleev did for Chemistry. Mefford's chart has hundreds of boxes [symbols deduced from simple premises] each symbol describing a different, yet distinct, personality configuration. He has definitely upgraded value science; and he has developed a 12-week curriculum now being implemented in a major university in a Western country which has an economy growing at a much more rapid pace than in the USA ...even more than Brazil has.

[Hjarloprillar]

Prof

"Thus, the reason why murder is wrong has nothing to do with the maximization of happiness, much less the command of a deity, or the exercise of virtue, but the fact that murder results in the destruction of something intrinsically valuable, a human life."

I see this as self evident.
Thus 'morality' is what?

one hell of a question.

pls answer without c&p or links..
Your thoughts. not anothers. [i can read them anytime.. You however must speak with own mind.]


Prill

[prof]

Prof

...murder results in the destruction of something intrinsically valuable, a human life."

I see this as self evident.

I am very glad to hear that you do. For that adds confirmation to the reasonableness of the definition of "Ethics" within the value-scientific frame of reference. As you know by now, I defined Ethics as the Intrinsic valuation of individuals. Alan Donagan independently arrived at this; and now you have too. Great !

Thus 'morality' is what?
Prill

This question has already received a proposed answer, a tentative one, in a thread I posted here on this page. Count down to about the 28th thread listed below this one, or count up from the bottom of this page to the 21st one. The title of it, appropriately enough, is "What Is Morality?"

Let me know if you found the presentation to be adequate. I defined it, as you may recall, as a relationship, of correspondence, between the self and the Self. I explained what each of these words mean. I found that William Shakespeare, years ago, had seen its ethical and moral implications when he had a character in one of his plays speak about this very topic.

Value itself is a match between meaning and reality; and Morality [moral value] - as my system defines it - is a match between an individual's principles and his/her conduct.


p.s. In case you haven't already guessed, those papers, to which links were given at the end of the o.p., were authored by me.

[prof]

This theory of Ethics can be counted on.

A 'theory' in science is not just a guess. It is a logical fit. It all hangs together. It is coherent.

It will, of necessity, be incomplete. Goedel proved that: a system has to be one or the other, can't be both, coherent and complete.

Formal Axiology serves as the meta-theory. It defines key terms - such as good, ethical.

Ethics, the discipline, accumulates reliable knowledge, and suggests (to those who have the imagination) relevant technologies - with the result that the world becomes more ethical in its behavior.

When individuals, as a result of education, or by their own intuition, learn to go in the Intrinsic direction, to value Intrinsically, they devise better norms and systems, they become more effective, and they live with less conflict and more harmony. They pursue the goals of a healthy body and a healthy mind and an ethical life, a good life.

They know that money can't buy happiness ...yet it can help get over some of the sadness. Being efficacious helps too.

Comments? Questions? Suggestions?

[Hjarloprillar]

When individuals, as a result of education, or by their own intuition, learn to go in the Intrinsic direction, to value Intrinsically, they devise better norms and systems, they become more effective, and they live with less conflict and more harmony. They pursue the goals of a healthy body and a healthy mind and an ethical life, a good life.
They know that money can't buy happiness ...yet it can help get over some of the sadness. Being efficacious helps too.
Comments? Questions? Suggestions?

My comment is.. 'well said'.
Through education and intrinsic nature i realized very young the worth of a life.
This is why i study war
Where 'come on you apes. do you want to live forever' is seen as incredibly brave and incredibly stupid.
but more so as a black box technology workshop.. the DoD feeds billions in. and resulting profitability is not an issue.
The curse of war.
was it not plato who said. Only the dead will see an end to war.
in2013 you would think we were smarter. but still it goes on.. colonies of US in mideast can only result in more.
We as a species are still very young.
We still have not given full shape to ethics and morality but we get closer day by day.
In your posts you have proved this to be a truism. Your thoughts move us closer to gestalt
As G Carlin said. 'I've this crazy thing i do. its called thinking.'

sorry

there is so much in my head it just flows out when i meet someone who thinks well.
and yes. the sadness.
Is it fundamental that to grow we must suffer pain grief and loss. Much as it saddens me. i think it is so.

i will read your post and linked papers.

Nikos of sparta

[The Voice of Time]

If you would only read the papers by Katz to which links were given you would discover that P. W. Zapffe's 'Isolation mechanism' does not apply to the theory proposed. There are lots of mentions of, rather than "dismissal from consciousness of all disturbing thoughts ..." in that topics such as tyranny, immorality, greed, incest, crime, etc. are discussed - albeit briefly, as is fitting, considering today's short attention spans. {That's also why the Unified Theory is presented in four Parts rather than one long book.}

I think you misunderstood. What was my intention and meaning was that "Know Yourself", "Choose to be yourself", "Create (the talents and potentials within) Yourself" and "Give Yourself; (express your gifts, so as to: Minimize suffering. Maximize well-being and Quality of life (for all you can))" is practically the maximized used of Zapffe's mechanisms, because to know yourself you must be able to focus on yourself as in contradiction to the outside world, to be yourself you must be able to ignore potential bad side effects of being yourself, to give yourself you must be able to ignore that sometimes you are simply not enough, and that sometimes people need something else than yourself.

It is simply the problem of optimism that they will not realize the real world (practice realism), which is not always in favour and may require internal adjustment.

[Hjarloprillar]

If you would only read the papers by Katz to which links were given you would discover that P. W. Zapffe's 'Isolation mechanism' does not apply to the theory proposed. There are lots of mentions of, rather than "dismissal from consciousness of all disturbing thoughts ..." in that topics such as tyranny, immorality, greed, incest, crime, etc. are discussed - albeit briefly, as is fitting, considering today's short attention spans. {That's also why the Unified Theory is presented in four Parts rather than one long book.}

I think you misunderstood. What was my intention and meaning was that "Know Yourself", "Choose to be yourself", "Create (the talents and potentials within) Yourself" and "Give Yourself; (express your gifts, so as to: Minimize suffering. Maximize well-being and Quality of life (for all you can))" is practically the maximized used of Zapffe's mechanisms, because to know yourself you must be able to focus on yourself as in contradiction to the outside world, to be yourself you must be able to ignore potential bad side effects of being yourself, to give yourself you must be able to ignore that sometimes you are simply not enough, and that sometimes people need something else than yourself.

It is simply the problem of optimism that they will not realize the real world (practice realism), which is not always in favour and may require internal adjustment.

or simply act accosting to your compasss

[prof]

The question could be raised: On what data would a science of Ethics be grounded?

I'll respond by citing some facts about the human condition.

Fact: We are social animals.

Fact: We need to give and receive affection.

Fact: Most people do what they said they would do. That is how and why we get our household electricity each day when we throw a switch; people acted responsibly to deliver the energy.

Fact: Most drivers do not crash. They observe and comply with the rules of the road. They let another driver pass ahead of them at a merger onto a narrower lane. In this way, and many others, they display fair conduct, etc.

Fact: Most people do not violently attack one another. A few do but they are an exception. Deviant behavior is not normal. Most folks are normal. They often exhibit graciousness. They are courteous. They are tolerant.

Fact: Most people, if they observed an individual walking ahead of them was about to be hit by a falling object, would shout "Look out. Danger!" They would do this for a total stranger without inquiring first about the individual's religion, ideology, or birthplace.

Fact: We have mirror neurons. It has often been observed that in a room full of children when one child is crying many other children in that room will express sadness. Laughter is infectious. Yawning seems contagious often. If one person sees an insect crawling up the arm of another the first person winces. Fear on the part of one often leads to panic by many. Etc. etc.

Fact: People want justice to be done.

Fact: People want things to make sense.

Fact: Some version of The Golden Rule is to be found in virtually every culture on the planet. For example, the principle is formulated this way: "Do not do another what you would not want done to yourself !" This suggests that empathy and compassion are human qualities.


Can you offer other facts about human beings that are species-wide?

[The Voice of Time]

Who are you answering Prof? I don't see what this offers, what you say doesn't mean anything, it's just data.

[prof]

Refer to the theme of this thread as indicated by its title.

That is the topic. Let us here address that.

I claim a science will offer some (impersonal) direction.

We don't need pessimism nor cynicism. It accomplishes nothing. Let's build, not burn.

[The Voice of Time]

Refer to the theme of this thread as indicated by its title.

That is the topic. Let us here address that.

I claim a science will offer some (impersonal) direction.

A science or science in general?

We don't need pessimism nor cynicism. It accomplishes nothing. Let's build, not burn.

Then a realist would start saying "stop waving with that god damn torch!" (not that any of us are burning anything, I'm merely stating that conditions underlie everything you do, and if you really want to do some good you should take those conditions into account on your venture).

[Hjarloprillar]

Refer to the theme of this thread as indicated by its title.

That is the topic. Let us here address that.

I claim a science will offer some (impersonal) direction.

We don't need pessimism nor cynicism. It accomplishes nothing. Let's build, not burn.

Prof puts in passion.
good to see
passion and desire are not dirty words ..
they are in method to understanding.but in act are needed more.
i have great passion for certain issues.
I think if i did not.. i would be just a reasoning machine

how tedious and plain boring the world would be if we were all reasoning machines

[a Shark]

Recently a philosophically-minded student wrote this:
"Ethics are described as a system of moral principles.

What is a principle? In science principles are not arbitrarily chosen. They are a explanation of how something functions.

He is right; ethics is the moral bullshit of States.
They get to say what is moral and what is ethical.
Thus ethics is an idea of the establishment.
In reality Ethics is the consequence of the events imposed on
humans ,animals and the environment.
You can call it what you want but what it does is the true nature of what is ethical.