Reasoning to a practical, moral conclusion

[prof]

Honest question. Are ethics the same as morals? Seems ethics are external, and morals, internal.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

... ethics is an analysis of moral rules, capable of unpacking the assumptions within the received wisdom of moral rules.

...So for a given situation the moral route is made clear by the standard set of rules.
But ethics would give you the opportunity to change the rule in light of the particular situation.

Thanks Hobbes. That does clarify matters for me. Much appreciated.

Are matters now really clarified, Dslek? -

Do you now have a satisfactory theory of ethics to guide you? Are there enough ethical people in this world to reassure you? No more corruption? No more malicious cruelty? No more warring, with all the mass-murder and needless suffering it entails? Did the above analysis get us to do anything about the threats of global Climate Change?

. If not, then maybe one ought to seek a better Ethical Theory than was offered in the quote above????.........

[Hobbes' Choice]

Since to be what you are supposed to is to be "good," then it follows that any individual who is what he or she is supposed to be is good under the concept in question. Here the concept we are concerned with is Ethics....


Comments? Questions?

It all depends.

There is not one quality mentioned above that for some circumstance would be a great evil. and there are numerous examples where a breach of those qualities would be necessary in order to do good.

Yes, HC, one may be "generous to a fault." Or one may lie to save a life. My question for you is: Would you prefer, since "it all depends" - since there are rare exceptions to general ethical principals - would you prefer to be surrounded by generous people who are, say, ready to do you a favor if, heaven forfend, you should ever need one? And would you mind hanging out with a bunch of compulsive liars as your social group? Since - after all - there are occasions when lying is morally acceptable !!

Do you get my point?

u

Yes, it's a foolish point, as the choice you pretend is not and could never be on offer. Ethics has to be about the moral world in which we find ourselves. Many moralists pretend to be able to control that world. They have never managed that, and never will.
You are living a dream world. The moral field is partly combative, and partly co-operative, but will always have an element of competitiveness, between interests and culturally formed customs.
Whilst you are at liberty to argue for your ideas formed from the subject of your experience, you are fooling yourself if you pretend objectivity or absolute moral rules or laws. It is immature, aggressive and oppressive.

[prof]

... you are fooling yourself if you pretend objectivity or absolute moral rules or laws.

I do NOT "pretend objectivity or absolute moral rules or laws." This is an example of "The Straw Ma"n argument if it was directed at me.

Anyone who has read my booklets would know that I believe that eventually Ethics can be a science, and that I hold that in science all propositions are tentative, dated and indexed. They are relative in many ways. No scientist ought speak in absolute terms.

Well of course the critical attack doesn't apply to me, as I never said I could, or would, to quote HC, "control the world." The "keys" to which the subtitle in ETHICS FOR THE 21st CENTURY refers are new technologies that come along which make life less-stressful, and/or which tend to relieve some misery and desperation - thus helping to minimize needless suffering. One who had read my material would be aware of this.

Obviously we are employing the word "objectivity" in different senses, and thus talking around each other. I mean it in the sense Habermas might have used it.


One of the major findings reported on in my latest essay, is that of Brain Neurology. It seems we are pre-wired to look out for our personal benefit, our self-interest.

Hence the question arises: What is in our true self-interest? The empirical research (done by a team at a prestigious university inn Ohio) produced evidence that shows hat if we make someone else happy there is a high correlation with the condition of our then being happy too, as a result.

If someone here is willing to engage in the open-source project of sharpening up the terms of Ethics, and making the study more rigorous, as well as basing it even more upon empirical data, send me a private message, and a collaboration may result. The project is growing at an exponential rate.

[Hobbes' Choice]

... you are fooling yourself if you pretend objectivity or absolute moral rules or laws.

I do NOT "pretend objectivity or absolute moral rules or laws." This is an example of The traw Man argument if it was directed at me.

Anyone who has rad my booklets would know that I believe that eventually Ethics can be a science, and that I hold that in science all propositions are tentative, dated and indexed. They are relative in many ways. No scientist ought speak in absolute terms.

Well of course the critical attack doesn't apply to me, as I never said I could, or would, to quote HC, "control the world." The "keys" to which the subtitle in ETHICS FOR THE 21st CENTURY refers are new technologies that come along which make life less-stressful, and/or which tend to relieve some misery and desperation - thus helping to minimize needless suffering. One who had read my material would be aware of this.

Obviously we are employing the word "objectivity" in different senses, and thus talking around each other. I mean it in the sense Habermas might have used it.


One of the major findings reported on in my latest essay, is that of Brain Neurology. It seems we are prewired to look out for our personal benefit, our self-interest.

Nence the question arises: What is in our true self-interest? The empirical research (done by a team at a prestigious university inn Ohio) produced evidence that shows hat if we make someone elsee happy there is a high correlation with the condition of our being happy too.

If someone here is willing to engage in the open-source project of sharpening up the terms of Ethics, and making the study more rigorous, as well as basing it even more upon empirical data, send me a private message, and a collaboration may result. The project is growing at an exponential rate.

No I have not "rad" your books (so-called). And no this is not a "trawman" argument. If you claim to make a science of ethics you are claiming you can unpack moral laws, that are universal. If that is not your claim, then you either misunderstand ethics, or you mis understand science. My guess is both.

[Gary Childress]

No offense, Prof, but consulting to publically - traded companies is like preaching to the deaf, as they cannot legally act on your advice, unless your advice happens to coincide with their duty to shareholder profit. Note that a privately held company may act ethically, as long as the owner decides to.

Yeah, I've worked for a few corporations in my lifetime so far. I don't know for sure anymore but it does seem like profit is the raison d'etre of a corporation and therefore overrides other more rational considerations. I suppose it really does say something about them that part of the reason for their existence is to relieve owners/shareholders of personal liability for the consequences of what the business does.

[prof]

Anyone who has rad my booklets would know that ... I hold that in science all propositions are tentative, dated and indexed. They are relative in many ways. No scientist ought speak in absolute terms.

Well of course the critical attack doesn't apply to me, as I never said I could, or would, to quote HC, "control the world." The "keys" to which the subtitle in ETHICS FOR THE 21st CENTURY refers are new technologies that come along which make life less-stressful, and/or which tend to relieve some misery and desperation - thus helping to minimize needless suffering. One who had read my material would be aware of this.

Obviously we are employing the word "objectivity" in different senses, and thus talking around each other. I mean it in the sense Habermas might have used it.


One of the major findings reported on in my latest essay, is that of Brain Neurology. It seems we are prewired to look out for our personal benefit, our self-interest.

Nence the question arises: What is in our true self-interest? The empirical research (done by a team at a prestigious university inn Ohio) produced evidence that shows hat if we make someone else happy there is a high correlation with the condition of our being happy too.

If someone here is willing to engage in the open-source project of sharpening up the terms of Ethics, and making the study more rigorous, as well as basing it even more upon empirical data, send me a private message, and a collaboration may result. The project is growing at an exponential rate.

No I have not "rad" your books (so-called). And no this is not a "trawman" argument. If you claim to make a science of ethics you are claiming you can unpack moral laws, that are universal.....

Don't you love it when a critic who has not read the writings tears them apart anyway?

There is an entire section in BASIC ETHICS on the high value of Individuality [as exemplified by H. D. Thoreau, Dennis Kucinich, and others who have risen above their culture.]



Here are some universal moral principles - stated in imperative form:

Maximize value and minimize disvalue.
Make things morally better.
Include more individuals into your social circle.
Keep hypocrisy to a minimum.
Be authentic.
Do as little harm as possible.
Empower people from the bottom up ((rather than trickle down on them )

Most of them are true by definition within the models that comprise the frame-of-reference. They suggest testable hypotheses which when verified by research will make the hypothesis true by observation. Or, in the sense of Carl Gustav Hempel, they will then gain empirical import in addition to the theoretical import they now have.

[Hobbes' Choice]

No I have not "rad" your books (so-called). And no this is not a "trawman" argument. If you claim to make a science of ethics you are claiming you can unpack moral laws, that are universal.....

Don't you love it when a critic who has not read the writings tears them apart anyway?

e.

I did not attack the 'writings' but the entire premise which is idiotic. We've had this out before: you are less convincing now than then

[Scott Mayers]

No offense, Prof, but consulting to publically - traded companies is like preaching to the deaf, as they cannot legally act on your advice, unless your advice happens to coincide with their duty to shareholder profit. Note that a privately held company may act ethically, as long as the owner decides to.

Yeah, I've worked for a few corporations in my lifetime so far. I don't know for sure anymore but it does seem like profit is the raison d'etre of a corporation and therefore overrides other more rational considerations. I suppose it really does say something about them that part of the reason for their existence is to relieve owners/shareholders of personal liability for the consequences of what the business does.

I hadn't followed yours and Delek's discussion but noticed your comment. I'd like to see limitations on private forms of corporation such as permanent time limits one can speculate on shares and remove the limited liability once the company is on its feet. I like the intention of public corporations to serve as specially chartered entities for public infrastructure and communication, etc, but believe the private sector has gone beyond its capacity to be fair by default of the profit-only incentive. On this topic, for moral reasons, I see this as a 'practical' type of area we could effectively tune in to appeal to society in better ways.

[Dalek Prime]

No offense, Prof, but consulting to publically - traded companies is like preaching to the deaf, as they cannot legally act on your advice, unless your advice happens to coincide with their duty to shareholder profit. Note that a privately held company may act ethically, as long as the owner decides to.

Yeah, I've worked for a few corporations in my lifetime so far. I don't know for sure anymore but it does seem like profit is the raison d'etre of a corporation and therefore overrides other more rational considerations. I suppose it really does say something about them that part of the reason for their existence is to relieve owners/shareholders of personal liability for the consequences of what the business does.

I hadn't followed yours and Delek's discussion but noticed your comment. I'd like to see limitations on private forms of corporation such as permanent time limits one can speculate on shares and remove the limited liability once the company is on its feet. I like the intention of public corporations to serve as specially chartered entities for public infrastructure and communication, etc, but believe the private sector has gone beyond its capacity to be fair by default of the profit-only incentive. On this topic, for moral reasons, I see this as a 'practical' type of area we could effectively tune in to appeal to society in better ways.

Read or watch The Corporation if you haven't already, Scott and Gary. Guaranteed worth your while.

[Scott Mayers]

Read or watch The Corporation if you haven't already, Scott and Gary. Guaranteed worth your while.

Saw it, have a copy of it, and embrace it. Great doc.

[Dalek Prime]

Are matters now really clarified, Dslek? -


Do you now have a satisfactory theory of ethics to guide you? Are there enough ethical people in this world to reassure you? No more corruption? No more malicious cruelty? No more warring, with all the mass-murder and needless suffering it entails? Did the above analysis get us to do anything about the threats of global Climate Change?

. If not, then maybe one ought to seek a better Ethical Theory than was offered in the quote above????.........

I'll read your pamphlets when I have an opportunity, prof. But I will repeat something I've said elsewhere; man has had thousands of years to live within ethical boundaries, and has always crossed them. As many are so fond of saying, rules are meant to be broken. I do not see man suddenly changing his ways for the better, no matter what set of ethics are placed before him, and thus find the discussion moot, though a good exercise in ethics.

And yes, I do have a good system of ethics to guide me; applying the golden rule the best I can, and the ethics of antinatalism.

[prof]

... seek a better Ethical Theory........

I'll read your pamphlets when I have an opportunity, prof.

Good for you! I commend you for that willingness to learn.

But... I do not see man suddenly changing his ways for the better, no matter what set of ethics are placed before him, and thus find the discussion moot...

How did you find out about the Golden Rule? Someone taught it to you. If you have faith in education to modify behavior - if you grant that a child can learn - then when new concepts pertaining to ethics are taught in primary grades, along with basic arithmetic, why wouldn't it have any effect?

Haven't you seen any improvements in the degree of civilization? Most people in the world now believe that slavery is morally wrong, and that murder is wrong! There was a time when they did not see that.

As you know, I am not handing down rules; rather I am offering guidelines for a trouble-free life. These are suggestions as to how to stay out of trouble, and how to grease the skids of human interpersonal relations.

[Dalek Prime]

Man cannot change, prof. That's one of the reasons I'm an antinatalist. Slavery still exists. It's just called something else, as is murder.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Morality can never be a science.
No matter how clever is your reasoning; how clear your logic; and how clearly stated are your aims. When you reverse engineer all your statements, conclusions, rule, and ethical absolutes you boil down to a premise that is emotional, cultural, and historically contingent.

Science is not like that. It seeks to describe universally applicable facts by which causes and effects occur. It's not about opinion; it snot about how people feel, it knows not aspirations for rights, responsibilities or privileges. Either science works or it does not.
Morals only work within specific cultural contexts which are ever changing.

In every example in history where society, or elements in society with the power to do so, has claimed to be the holders of the moral truth, who have asserted absolute and objective, systematic and indelible moral necessity, has led to a wretched and opressive reality for those upon whom the moral laws were imposed.

[prof]

Moral laws are not imposed.

This they have in common with natural law.

People can attempt to violate them, but there is a price to be paid. In the case of disregarding the logical existential hierarchy of value, the price is a more-chaotic society, needing more-expensive repairs, than is necessary. If one personally (because his or her conscience is asleep) does not experience the stress and aggravation, one's children, that one may care about, will.


Comments? Questions?