New Educational Opportunity

[prof]

The title of the little pamphlet (only 15 pages - if printed out on both sides) is ETHICS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: Keys to the good life - (2015)
Here is a link to it for your convenience: http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ET ... ENTURY.pdf

Did a careful study of these pages provide you with any concepts that you found to be stimulating or enlightening with regard to ethical theory and its practical applications?

This document is designed to provoke thought about concerns of Ethics, the serious study. - Is it helpful in that respect?

...Would like your critique, not as to its style but as to its substance. Will it contribute to the more-rapid arrival of an ethical world? Will you, as you pursue your career and goals in life, put it to work? -

Thanks in advance.

[tbieter]

The title of the little pamphlet (only 15 pages - if printed out on both sides) is ETHICS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: Keys to the good life - (2015)
Here is a link to it for your convenience: http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ET ... ENTURY.pdf

Did a careful study of these pages provide you with any concepts that you found to be stimulating or enlightening with regard to ethical theory and its practical applications?

This document is designed to provoke thought about concerns of Ethics, the serious study. - Is it helpful in that respect?

...Would like your critique, not as to its style but as to its substance. Will it contribute to the more-rapid arrival of an ethical world? Will you, as you pursue your career and goals in life, put it to work? -

Thanks in advance.

Here is a quote from the document:
Chapter One
Recently news media carried a report about a homeless guy. He found a briefcase
containing a lot of cash in a public place. He promptly went to the nearby police precinct
and turned it in. When questioned, he simply said it was the "right thing to do."

In October, 2014 this column appeared in the online newswire magazine Runners World
& Running Times:
A North Dakota high school senior carried her injured competitor across the finish line
of their conference championship last Saturday, the Devils Lake Journal reports.
Devils Lake High School’s Melanie Bailey came across Fargo South senior Danielle
LeNoue just past the two-mile mark of the roughly 2.5-mile course. Other runners
streamed past, but Bailey stopped and offered her assistance to LeNoue, who was
limping and crying, and obviously in distress.
Despite LeNoue’s insistence that Bailey continue on without her, Bailey refused to do
so. “She was just sobbing, I couldn’t leave her,” Bailey told the Devils Lake Journal.
LeNoue later found out she had torn her patella tendon and meniscus.
Bailey tried at first to have LeNoue lean on her so the two could walk together, but they
found that that wasn’t enough. Bailey then picked LeNoue up and carried her
approximately one quarter of a mile on her back to the finish line. Bailey crossed the line
in 178th place, out of 180 runners in the field.
Bailey, an aspiring physical therapist, told the Devils Lake Journal, “I feel like I was just
doing the right thing.”

This system of Ethics is not – in contrast with many other purported ethical theories -
oriented around the concept "action." Rather, it is concerned with the individual of good
character. Such a person would tend to 'do the right thing' most of the time either out of
habit and/or out of devotion to being a moral person.
I introduced these two instances of "doing the right thing" on this forum:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14071
I suspect that prof's essay will raise the issue whether his ethical theory or traditional virtue ethics will better explain the two instances, Now, I'll return to reading prof's essay.

[prof]

Yes, you did introduce those instances, Tom, for which I am profoundly grateful. The pamphlet also contains credited quotes from Rosalind Hursthouse, a renowned Philosopher who argues for Virtue Ethics, and especially for an understanding of the value of honesty. Thank you very much for your contribution and for upholding the free exchange of ideas; you are a better writer than I am. You, as do journalists, know that to give a concrete example at the outset will hold the reader's interest. I was very impressed by your skill. If you wish, I'll make you a co-author of the essay in its next edition, should there be one, since your have a gift for selecting good examples to illustrate points.

The essence of my theory is that "Ethics" is a perspective ...a perspective on a human individual, or group of them. It arises when we view the human being as highly valuable. Also, the theory indicates that - if we are ethical - we will make things better, morally better. Lots of implications may be deduced from that definition (of the concept "Ethics") and from that axiom. One of them is: Do no harm! This in turn implies a renunciation of violence, cruelty, ruthless exploitation, lack of humility, greed, self-mutilation, etc.

Also, as part of the theory, techniques and methods are proffered which enable us to make things better. In addition, it encourages us to develop new 'moral technologies', that is, technologies which tend to make our lives easier, simpler, more secure and more comfortable. Such innovations are how we "get from here to there" - how we are more likely to live in a more-civilized world, in an ethical world - one that has less incentives for trouble-making, for needless stress of an anxious sort, for crime and maliciousness.

Since syntropy (order, value) is every bit as much natural law as is entropy, if we want to live in harmony with nature, we would encourage more syntropy: we would strive to maximize value and to minimize disvalue (chaos, misery, destitution and avoidable suffering.) We would support practical policies that implement this.

Furthermore, research in Brain Neurology has shown that we are pre-wired to seek our own personal benefit. A question that arises is: What is that benefit and how can we attain it? Research by Dr. Post at Case Western Reserve has revealed that if we make someone else happy we are then happy too. We come to feel our life is making a difference when we make others happy; life seems more meaningful to us; it is a good feeling! It lifts us up. If we trust others, treat them decently, they often tend to treat us the same way. It is a win/win situation, all around.


Comments? Questions?

[tbieter]

Yes, you did introduce those instances, Tom, for which I am profoundly grateful. The pamphlet also contains credited quotes from Rosalind Hursthouse, a renowned Philosopher who argues for Virtue Ethics, and especially for an understanding of the value of honesty. Thank you very much for your contribution and for upholding the free exchange of ideas; you are a better writer than I am. You, as do journalists, know that to give a concrete example at the outset will hold the reader's interest. I was very impressed by your skill. If you wish, I'll make you a co-author of the essay in its next edition, should there be one, since your have a gift for selecting good examples to illustrate points.That will not be necessary.

The essence of my theory is that "Ethics" is a perspective ...a perspective on a human individual, or group of them. It arises when we view the human being as highly valuable. Also, the theory indicates that - if we are ethical - we will make things better, morally better. Lots of implications may be deduced from that definition (of the concept "Ethics") and from that axiom.Ethics is a judgment by a human being that an act is either morally right or wrong. One of them is: Do no harm! This in turn implies a renunciation of violence, cruelty, ruthless exploitation, lack of humility, greed, self-mutilation, etc. The fundamental axiom of Thomism is synderisis or "Good is to be sought and evil is to be avoided."

Also, as part of the theory, techniques and methods are proffered which enable us to make things better. In addition, it encourages us to develop new 'moral technologies', that is, technologies which tend to make our lives easier, simpler, more secure and more comfortable. Such innovations are how we "get from here to there" - how we are more likely to live in a more-civilized world, in an ethical world - one that has less incentives for trouble-making, for needless stress of an anxious sort, for crime and maliciousness.

Since syntropy (order, value) is every bit as much natural law as is entropy, if we want to live in harmony with nature, we would encourage more syntropy: we would strive to maximize value and to minimize disvalue (chaos, misery, destitution and avoidable suffering.) We would support practical policies that implement this.

Furthermore, research in Brain Neurology has shown that we are pre-wired to seek our own personal benefit. A question that arises is: What is that benefit and how can we attain it? Research by Dr. Post at Case Western Reserve has revealed that if we make someone else happy we are then happy too. We come to feel our life is making a difference when we make others happy; life seems more meaningful to us; it is a good feeling! It lifts us up. If we trust others, treat them decently, they often tend to treat us the same way. I doubt, however, that public schools teach The Golden Rule. It is a win/win situation, all around.


Comments? Questions?

[tbieter]

The following incident has fascinated me. It is a rare complex human act. When I reported it in this forum I was hoping that someone would offer an explanation from the discipline of psychology. Or from ethics in general. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14071 In due course, I came to think that the most reasonable explanation is to be found in virtue ethics.

After much thought, I have concluded that this act resulted from the runner's possession of the following virtues: prudence, compassion, magnanimity, and fortitude.
In October, 2014 this column appeared in the online newswire magazine Runners World
& Running Times:
A North Dakota high school senior carried her injured competitor across the finish line
of their conference championship last Saturday, the Devils Lake Journal reports.
Devils Lake High School’s Melanie Bailey came across Fargo South senior Danielle
LeNoue just past the two-mile mark of the roughly 2.5-mile course. Other runners
streamed past, but Bailey stopped and offered her assistance to LeNoue, who was
limping and crying, and obviously in distress.
Despite LeNoue’s insistence that Bailey continue on without her, Bailey refused to do
so. “She was just sobbing, I couldn’t leave her,” Bailey told the Devils Lake Journal.
LeNoue later found out she had torn her patella tendon and meniscus.
Bailey tried at first to have LeNoue lean on her so the two could walk together, but they
found that that wasn’t enough. Bailey then picked LeNoue up and carried her
approximately one quarter of a mile on her back to the finish line. Bailey crossed the line
in 178th place, out of 180 runners in the field.
Bailey, an aspiring physical therapist, told the Devils Lake Journal, “I feel like I was just
doing the right thing.”

This system of Ethics is not – in contrast with many other purported ethical theories -
oriented around the concept "action." Rather, it is concerned with the individual of good
character. Such a person would tend to 'do the right thing' most of the time either out of
habit and/or out of devotion to being a moral person. Let me now paint for you a
scenario in order to introduce the most basic principle of Ethics, as well as to define for
you what is meant by “Ethics” in this modernized paradigm adapted for the 21st-Century

[prof]

Ethics is about evaluating moral values and principles, and is concerned with working out a basis on which to follow these principles. To comply with these voluntary guidelines, the moral principles, is "right." Not to, is "wrong." In the paper, Ethics for the 21st Century, I define carefully the term "Ethics."

Bailey's compassionate set of actions are evidence of an objective moral order - to answer your question raised in your earlier post.

Human beings (at the very least) want to survive. (Actually they want more.) We are pre-wired to seek our personal benefit, of which survival is a minimum necessary requirement. What does it take to survive? Well, it is a fact of Biology that for a cell in our body to be healthy it helps if the cells surrounding it are healthy. In the same way, if you, or I, or any individual, gets in trouble then we need our neighbors and family to help us out. We need the people around us. Let's call them "our support group."

Isn't it so that each of the people around us has people around them - who could serve as their support group? This keeps them strong: for If one of the people around them has an infectious disease it is going to threaten their own health, and make them less strong. This is just plain common sense! So, we deduce, if you need the people around you as your support, you also need the people around them. And where does it stop? It doesn't. Therefore by logical reasoning we conclude that we need the entire human species as our "support group." This is a basic fact of empirical ethics.

The human race is a support group for each human individual. We are, in conclusion, interdependent. [Let's be mindful of this so that we may have awareness.]

And thus it is in our personal best interest to cooperate.

Hence, let us seek harmonious cooperation - as did Ms. Bailey - and we will be "doing the right thing."


Your views, readers? Does this resonate with you?

Do you have upgrades to offer? How can the Ethical Theory contributed in that paper Ethics for the21st Century be further improved? Does the above post improve upon it?
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ET ... ENTURY.pdf
.

[tbieter]

This excerpt is from page 6.
"As a teacher of ethics I would argue that - agreeing with the insight of Aristotle -
everything aims for the good. Everyone is doing the best they can; if they knew better,
they would do better. The claim being made is that the cause of all our problems (in the
human realm) is ignorance. Knowledge is the answer. This includes knowing how.
I disagree. Knowledge is not a sufficient cause of producing moral actions. This is suggested by the constant facts of intelligent, well-educated people intentionally committing crimes. The latest instance involves the Delta State U. sociology instructor shooting and killing the history prof. Do you remember the U. of Chicago brilliant grads, Leopold and Loeb? They killed Bobby Franks "for the thrill of it." There is a rabbi in prison for life. He hired someone to kill his wife. Last week T. Eugene Thompson died here in St. Paul. He was a prominent criminal defense lawyer. He taught criminal law. He was convicted of hiring Norman Mastrian to kill his wife. For 0ne million dollars in insurance. Criminals aim at false goods and do not expect to get caught!
If the person who seems most malicious knew vividly the benefits of living an ethical life in an
ethical world, and if that individual knew HOW to have high ideals and to live up to them
- as Ethics directs one to do - then that party, aiming for the good, and understanding
how to arrive at it, would no longer be malicious. What does it mean to be "good"?
Something is good if it has all the properties necessary to fulfill its purpose (its
meaning.) The ultimate purpose, according to Ethics, is to provide a quality life for one
and all."

[prof]

Greetings, Tom

When I wrote that I was thinking of relatively-normal people. Of course there are exceptions at the extremes of the bell curve: some folks have brain damage which predisposes them to do criminal acts; some have a psychosis that produces madness. The criminal mind is complex, granted, but the murderers and rapists, and the cases you cite share one belief in common with lots of others who are not criminals - and that is the view that violence gets us somewhere, that it is beneficial for human beings.
]
This is a mostly false belief (with rare instances of it working in the short term.) Most wars are a prelude to the next war. Behavioral Psychologists have demonstrated with empiral results that punishment while it looks effective has unwanted side effects and tends to be self-defeating in the long run. For example, see the reasons why Associate Justice Steven Breyer, of the U.S. Supreme Court, believes it is time to reconsider the American nation's position on capital punishment.

And some who are highly-intelligent in other respects are, say, noncompulsive shoplifters who just don't know their Ethics ! Criminals lack empathy (to a sufficient degree) for their victims. Empathy {i.e., Intrinsic valuation] can be taught. These sme individuals may be strong in Systemic valuation (e.g., self-discipline, oderliness, efficient actions, clenliness, organizatrion, etc.) or in Extrinsic valuation skills (practicality, prudence, patience, savoir faire, congeniality, social smoothness, appearance, deal-making, public speaking, tact, etc.) but they have this one falw - a lack of empathy for those who might suffer as a result of their activity.


Responses? Rejoinders? Comments? Critiques?