Principles or Policies -- Which should take priority?

[Hjarloprillar]

Im talking world cities and far more.. We could do it, we'd have to start NOW... but you are right. At 9 to 10 it goes tits up.

So that is an issue with sharing wealth. When the wealth is prosperous, the wealthy multiply.

The wealthy multiply so slowly it does not factor.. The poor multiply like flies.
And they may as well be flies.
but for the children.
I am no 'better than the poor' i just have more education.

what if kusam haji in some bumsquat village in central India.. suddenly had my knowledge.
What a fascinating idea.
He would not do what is expected.
get water and food..

If i was him i'f tag my family and head for city. and KILL to get what i wanted. Survival of the fittest. natural selection.

evolution works.

you cant save everyone.
the horror

[Arising_uk]

...

Im talking world cities and far more.. We could do it, we'd have to start NOW... but you are right. At 9 to 10 it goes tits up.
This is why i say apollo to the moon.. was our greatest moment.. WE did it.
In a tin can. why i cried was that apollo was the last /best thing WE ever did.. In fact the only thing WE ever did.

Our epitaph . "We went to moon.. otherwise we wasted every opportunity reason allowed".

I liked it as well but it was a complete red-herring and a waste of money. Now Dyson, et al's, Project Orion, was a goer I think and we could have been past Jupiter by now and mining asteroids to boot.

You want to know when we actually went technologically backwards for the first time, the end of Concorde.

[Tesla]

Im talking world cities and far more.. We could do it, we'd have to start NOW... but you are right. At 9 to 10 it goes tits up.

So that is an issue with sharing wealth. When the wealth is prosperous, the wealthy multiply.

The wealthy multiply so slowly it does not factor.. The poor multiply like flies.
And they may as well be flies.
but for the children.
I am no 'better than the poor' i just have more education.

what if kusam haji in some bumsquat village in central India.. suddenly had my knowledge.
What a fascinating idea.
He would not do what is expected.
get water and food..

If i was him i'f tag my family and head for city. and KILL to get what i wanted. Survival of the fittest. natural selection.

evolution works.

you cant save everyone.
the horror

Education becomes priority, if the difference between multiplying like flies until dying in droves is knowledge. we need to invest in education. hasta pronto.

[prof]

Education becomes priority,... we need to invest in education. hasta pronto.

I agree - but it needs to be education in Ethics. We need to get our values straight; we need to know 'which way is up' before we do anything else.

If we're not clear as to what is most important then we'll only mess things up.

A good case can be made for the thesis that the USA is going though a decline in its empire. The number of parallels with the Decline of the Roman Empire is really amazing. Here in the USA our structures seem to be top-heavy, government seems inadequate to govern such a complex society and still have it resemble a democracy. Many seem unable to adjust to multi-lingual cultural conditions. Someone quipped online "We have socialism for the wealthy, and free-enterprise for the poor."

Comments?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



The things that once made America great are the same elements that are destroying her - just as quickly.



.

[The Voice of Time]

Education itself is worthless. What we need is an Atmosphere of Sophistication in society. Schools should cease their generality and should be reborn as a multitude of Specialized Centres of Knowledge, each one fulfilling to its greatest capacity the role it has, which is not necessarily just to teach kids, youth and late teens, but also for instance a Natural Science Specialized Centre of Knowledge could have a small biology laboratory where it can offer services to the public, or for instance a Geoscience centre could offer consulting and specialized services to construction industry, natural resource exploiters or the municipality or random individuals. Primary education should consist of 3 levels, Primary Courses, Secondary Courses and Tertiary Courses. The Primary Courses should be Language (native + any essential secondary ones, like Norwegian + English in Norway) then Basic Mathematics and then at last Basic Natural Science. Those are the three things all people must know to be able to function in society.

Beyond that the secondary courses should be things which are less important and should count a lot less towards measuring people's success in reaching a "satisfactory level of understanding in society" (which is our ultimate aim, though for the vagueness of "satisfactory" I might call it "workable", as some countries are more demanding than others and what we want is really for them to reach a workable state of understanding). Secondary courses should be Basic Psychology (which is really where we teach them about the effects of treating each other different forms of ways and how we can understand people different than us and how we can intercept people who suffer emotionally and psychologically and in turn how we help each other and reinforce each other), Basic Religion (giving an overview of the multitude of different religions and how they affect and operate in society, their demographics, basic beliefs and functions for members and non-members), Basic Philosophy (formal ethics, epistemology, existentialism, some informal logic and a touch of formal logic and then ontology), Basic Politics (structure of society and intergovernmental political structures and organizations as well as basic organizational theory, an overview of the broad range of political parties (for instance, allow each political party to hold a video-recorded powerpoint presentation about their party-programs capped at 1 or 2 minutes and distributed to classes), some understandings of law and journalism), Basic Sexology (what does science say of human sexual emotions, what is contraception and different forms of it, forms of sexuality, what are sex toys, what is pornography and different forms of it, and what are views of different cultures on sexuality (do the same as with political parties just that you have religious groups, advocate groups and non-party affiliated political groups instead, including inter-continental and inter-national comparisons of opinions on the matter)), basic social science (gender studies, demographics, anthropology, sociology and economics, all optimized for only overview, thought-pattern understanding and simple example understanding), basic geoscience (lightweight geology, local, regional, national and international geography, lightweight meteorology and environmental ecology), Complementary Languages (in Norway that would be German, French, Spanish and Russian, this should change however and the options should be more liberal so that Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian, Bengali, Portuguese etc. etc. could also be offered), General History (local, regional, national and international history, from three types of perspectives: developmental, social (including cultural), and political), Basic Computer Science (software, hardware, robotics, associated technology (like entertainment), lightweight learning of basic principles, modification and using) and lastly Health Science (gymnastics, nourishment, simple insights to relevant medical conditions and how they arise)

Beyond this, Tertiary courses are obligatory but you are free to pick in what you want, and they should consist of three types: "Extensions", which are extensions of the Primary and Secondary courses, offering kids and youth to advance beyond standard teachings in math, natural science, language, social science, geoscience, computer science and so forth, then "Introduction to Specialization" which are courses that gives basic insight into different fields that one can specialize in later on, whether it's software engineering or agriculture or biology, and Complementary courses, which are things like first aid, cooking food, sports courses and the likes.

[Tesla]

Education becomes priority,... we need to invest in education. hasta pronto.

I agree - but it needs to be education in Ethics. We need to get our values straight; we need to know 'which way is up' before we do anything else.

If we're not clear as to what is most important then we'll only mess things up.

A good case can be made for the thesis that the USA is going though a decline in its empire. The number of parallels with the Decline of the Roman Empire is really amazing. Here in the USA our structures seem to be top-heavy, government seems inadequate to govern such a complex society and still have it resemble a democracy. Many seem unable to adjust to multi-lingual cultural conditions. Someone quipped online "We have socialism for the wealthy, and free-enterprise for the poor."

Comments?

you are speaking my language. read this short article, which is an excerpt from a book coming out in July:

http://philosophynow.org/issues/91/Moral_Enhancement

my response to this article was:

This was so well written and accurate I'm not really sure what to say.

Some of my proposals are:

1. Write the book of wisdoms. (We all will need a 'bible' that is why the 'bible' was so popular: it was THE moral law.)
you need a collaboration for this, I can aid, as I've been collecting for it.
2. Legalize marijuana.
3. Cap wealth. (Globally, you cannot have one man have the wealth of a nation, and nations starve.)
4. Make education priority. (Research would explode, if you took the money in the non-research military and stopped making guns.)
5. Define 'the most important thing'. (Whatever it is, we all have to agree on this, or species philosophy is impossible)

[prof]

Education becomes priority,... we need to invest in education. hasta pronto.

I agree - but it needs to be education in Ethics. We need to get our values straight... before we do anything else.
Comments?

you are speaking my language. read this short article, which is an excerpt from a book coming out in July
[titled] Moral Enhancement

my response to this article was:

This was so well written and accurate I'm not really sure what to say.

Some of my proposals are:

1. Write the book of wisdoms. ,,, (...THE moral law.)
you need a collaboration for this, I can aid, as I've been collecting for it.
2. Legalize marijuana.
3. Cap wealth. (Globally, you cannot have one man have the wealth of a nation, and nations starve.)
4. Make education priority. (Research would explode, if you took the money in the non-research military and stopped making guns.)
5. Define 'the most important thing'. (Whatever it is, we all have to agree on this, or species philosophy is impossible)

Hi, there Tesla

Yes, the book Moral Enhancement is very-well written, and yes, it outlines and even describes the problems with which we are confronted very accurately, concisely, and brilliantly.

Its remedy though is one with which I cannot agree. They recommend biomedical measures and/or genetic manipulation to "cure' the ethical problems, and there is a lot wrong with that proposed solution:

It doesn't work for the cognitive insight required.

It doesn't even exist yet - they admit that.

It confronts us with new ethical dilemmas itself - thus adding to the set of problems.

I, for one, would definitely not submit to it; I would sooner volunteer for organ replacement surgery although I do not feel I need any.
I have no reason not to believe that many others would just as strongly resist the tampering with their bodies also.

It is a poor substitute for a science of Ethics to parallel and counterbalance the science of Physics. The former has been around for only three decades - and hasn't yet been written up by good science writers and journalists - while the latter has had 400 years to develop its reputation of respectability.

I could list other reasons but haven't the time right now. {When the article was first published in the journal, in early 2013, as you well know, Spike devoted many threads to what he saw as its faults. Many of his arguments people found to be persuasive. The publishers of the book likely figure that it is so controversial that it will get lots of press. Here is a sample of what Spike wrote: "I still think this article on Moral Enhancement is dumb, thinking that we can be morally enhanced artificially through drugs. There could never be enough drugs manufactured to make a difference. Imagine the resources that would take. And getting people to take them would be another huge problem....".}


Tesla, I agree with all your proposals but when I get to point #(5) I guess I haven't "been speaking your language", it seems I have not made myself clear. For if I had, how could you ask such a question

If you are merely making a proposal that the general public is to be informed of what is most important... that's one thing. That's okay. But if you mean that you yourself don't know ...as implied by your remark "whatever it is."... then I have failed to communicate (with you) in all my writings - and in all my blogs here at the PHILOSOPHY NOW site, especially my more than a dozen threads at the Ethical Theory Forum.

For time and again I have explained that going in the direction of Intrinsic Value is what is most important. And I have striven to make clear what In-Value is, how it was defined, what its applications are - see for example End Note 4 in the UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS booklet ...which offers about thirty of them. http://tinyurl.com/crz6xea
In "Steps to Value Creation" I again stressed the importance of I-Value - this time from a somewhat novel perspective.

For further insight on the topic, these links - all of them PDF files, safe to open - are recommended:

An early attempt to introduce the public to the new paradigm is this one, written in plain English (and which, like the others, can be easily downloaded.) It was not meant for a philosophical audience, but rather for executives, managers, and other laymen, click on this link: http://www.workforworldpeace.org/ethics_as_science.pdf

http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/axiologyasascience/
which describes some of the basics of Formal Axiology, which is the meta-language for Ethics as a discipline.

Also, for ETHICS- A College Course, use this link:
http://tinyurl.com/24cs9y7tt

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

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

The U.T.E. has four parts. Here is a list of the next three supplements:
For ETHICAL ADVENTURES, click on
http://tinyurl.com/38zfrh7

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

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

Studying these should prove helpful to a wider and deeper comprehension of the logical framework, and of how broadly the study ranges, and the power it has to account for ethical data and moral concerns.

After you've done your homework, talk to me. Tell me how you will support the project. I would very much love to hear your "wisdoms" and see how we can fit them into the over-all frame-of-reference.

[Tesla]

After you've done your homework, talk to me. Tell me how you will support the project. I would very much love to hear your "wisdoms" and see how we can fit them into the over-all frame-of-reference.

Although I agree the solution they propose is not one I would propose suggest or endorse. But I am impressed with the accurate analysis of today's issues. My proposals are what I would suggest for a solution, but the time frame for implementation maybe a little too late. The 'most likely' solution will be reactionary, and it will most likely get ugly if that turns out to be the case.

I will accept your homework assignment, but it will take time, so while you’re waiting for that, I'll explain point number five for you to mull over, as it is unlikely to change after the assignment.

The most important thing--our actions will support its value--but what is it? It is relative. And since our condition changes, so does the most important thing. What is the most important thing to a man in a desert? Is it not water? What is the most important thing to a city being attacked by war? Is it not its army? So what is the most important thing to a world of people, whose planet is overpopulated and under-resourced?

That's what I want to discuss. And there are many potential answers. Do the wealthy live, and the poorest die first for lack of assistance and wealth? Should the countries war, commit genocide, to preserve resources? Do we form a world government and balance all the economies, and let the country decide to do with its portion of resources to their benefit or ill? Do we just destroy the planet, and let our children inherit a dead or dying planet we could have saved?

Do you understand now? if not, wait until I complete your homework assignment so I will be able to see your flaws in reasoning or lack of vision, or to see the strength of your reasoning, and lack of flaws, and maybe make some headway. As long as: you do not lose sight of the most important thing.

[Tesla]

Hi, there Tesla

Yes, the book Moral Enhancement is very-well written, and yes, it outlines and even describes the problems with which we are confronted very accurately, concisely, and brilliantly.

Its remedy though is one with which I cannot agree. They recommend biomedical measures and/or genetic manipulation to "cure' the ethical problems, and there is a lot wrong with that proposed solution:

It doesn't work for the cognitive insight required.

It doesn't even exist yet - they admit that.

It confronts us with new ethical dilemmas itself - thus adding to the set of problems.

I, for one, would definitely not submit to it; I would sooner volunteer for organ replacement surgery although I do not feel I need any.
I have no reason not to believe that many others would just as strongly resist the tampering with their bodies also.

It is a poor substitute for a science of Ethics to parallel and counterbalance the science of Physics. The former has been around for only three decades - and hasn't yet been written up by good science writers and journalists - while the latter has had 400 years to develop its reputation of respectability.

I could list other reasons but haven't the time right now. {When the article was first published in the journal, in early 2013, as you well know, Spike devoted many threads to what he saw as its faults. Many of his arguments people found to be persuasive. The publishers of the book likely figure that it is so controversial that it will get lots of press. Here is a sample of what Spike wrote: "I still think this article on Moral Enhancement is dumb, thinking that we can be morally enhanced artificially through drugs. There could never be enough drugs manufactured to make a difference. Imagine the resources that would take. And getting people to take them would be another huge problem....".}


Tesla, I agree with all your proposals but when I get to point #(5) I guess I haven't "been speaking your language", it seems I have not made myself clear. For if I had, how could you ask such a question

If you are merely making a proposal that the general public is to be informed of what is most important... that's one thing. That's okay. But if you mean that you yourself don't know ...as implied by your remark "whatever it is."... then I have failed to communicate (with you) in all my writings - and in all my blogs here at the PHILOSOPHY NOW site, especially my more than a dozen threads at the Ethical Theory Forum.

For time and again I have explained that going in the direction of Intrinsic Value is what is most important. And I have striven to make clear what In-Value is, how it was defined, what its applications are - see for example End Note 4 in the UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS booklet ...which offers about thirty of them. In "Steps to Value Creation" I again stressed the importance of I-Value - this time from a somewhat novel perspective.

For further insight on the topic, these links - all of them PDF files, safe to open - are recommended:

An early attempt to introduce the public to the new paradigm is this one, written in plain English (and which, like the others, can be easily downloaded.) It was not meant for a philosophical audience, but rather for executives, managers, and other laymen, click on this link: http://www.workforworldpeace.org/ethics_as_science.pdf

http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/axiologyasascience/
which describes some of the basics of Formal Axiology, which is the meta-language for Ethics as a discipline.

Also, for ETHICS- A College Course, use this link:
http://tinyurl.com/24cs9y7tt

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

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

The U.T.E. has four parts. Here is a list of the next three supplements: For ETHICAL ADVENTURES, click on
http://tinyurl.com/38zfrh7

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

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

Studying these should prove helpful to a wider and deeper comprehension of the logical framework, and of how broadly the study ranges, and the power it has to account for ethical data and moral concerns.

After you've done your homework, talk to me. Tell me how you will support the project. I would very much love to hear your "wisdoms" and see how we can fit them into the over-all frame-of-reference.

Let’s try a different approach. Your papers are full of problems in rational, therefore: I cannot take them seriously, or read them without frustration and anger at every turn. It is a collective of idea's aimed at a vision of an agreement with the self-asserted indoctrination of what we 'should' be by the vision of the author, that almost completely reduces society into a head nodding agreement that will not be followed by a majority, and completely lacks the easy reading necessity of teaching the world to find an agreement on ethics through understanding why an agreed-to morality should be agreed to. It does not work in practice over the majority because of the number of corrupt, and the starting point for many. The research is way underdeveloped to rationalize 800 individuals would reflect billions of people. It is pertinent for some--but way too few from my point of viewing. Equations being used to model behavior are so similar in contrast to workplace hiring tactics in which psychological methods are applied to determine if someone is honest, which the questions although similar, leave out specific cases for determination in which lying becomes the only way to pass such a test, which if you research, you will find that the passers of high scores on the test did so by not giving any opinion of their own, but by modeling what response the leadership desires.

Do we all then throw out J.S. Mill? Immanuel Kant? Aristotle’s virtues? Moral relativism? Moral absolutionism? Ethical relativism?

What about Nietzsche?
"By Morality the individual is taught to become a function of the herd, and to ascribe to himself value only as a function...Morality is the herd instinct in the individual" --1882

The initial paper incorrectly assumes the leadership and the workers should have a common value system---which they don't; and Master and Slave morality is still pertinent in addressing ethics and defining what is most important. The fundamental flaw with teaching via 'thou shalt not' is that the prohibitions are to protect the weak, and only when obeyed do they do so, so your papers adequately point out that it is better to teach morality via placing a higher value on principle, namely Aristotle’s principles: Courage, Temperance, Liberality, Magnificence, pride, Good temper, Friendliness, Truthfulness, wittiness, Shame, and Justice.

The papers seem aimed at 'proving' or 'asserting' these are desirable through evidence of why they are valuable, without even addressing the negative effects that can come with adherence to these principles in a corrupt environment vs. a 'moral' one. As Plato wrote of the rulers saying: (paraphrased) if the good rule, good rules, and if the evil rules, then evil rules.

I'm beginning to wonder if you have any reasoning ability for conversation, which is the tool to convince or discover, because you have been avoiding any real discussion with me. Are you so high in your place, which you fear to say a wrong thing? How then can you grow? You can believe in your mind you are more grown than any other, but proof of that comes through discussion, not by avoiding discussion. For if you trip: you grow from it. And if you never chance a trip, you will never grow.

May we now have the discussion concerning 'the most important thing'?

[prof]

Hello, Tesla

I'm glad to hear that you are planning to read LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, and the four parts of the UNIFIED THEORY. From what I gather, you haven't started on them yet. I was hoping you would help me popularize them for the proverbial "person in the street."

Peter Diammandes, in his book, ABUNDANCE
disagrees that the planet is short of resources. We have plenty, It is just not being distributed correctly.
See the reviews at http://www.amazon.com/Abundance-Future- ... ewpoints=1
The World Game, inspired by R. Buckminster Fuller also backs up, with evidence, that there are no shortages of resources on the planet. Delivery to the right places is required.

I contend that education in values is needed so that a critical number of the world population acquire enlightened self interest. Plenty of people care about their self-interest; they just aren't aware that if everyone prospers, we'll all be better off


AND FOR YOUR VIEWING PLEASURE:

B. J. Thomas sings with kids “Using things…”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cEZjSp0ZSQ

What goes around, comes around: the boomerang effect
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzbNMHNSi2E

The Empathic Civilization – Jeremy Rifkin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g

These three brief videos are especially good at teaching ethics - the latter is more for thinking people such as students of Philosophy. It is a graphic summary of a book Dr. Rifkin wrote that I have listed in my Bibliography: THE EMPATHIC CIVILIZATION. It's an excellent piece of work.

IMHO, we need a lot more videos of this nature, and they need to be promoted widely so that they receive a more-adequate viewing.

[Tesla]

Hello, Tesla

I'm glad to hear that you are planning to read LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, and the four parts of the UNIFIED THEORY. From what I gather, you haven't started on them yet. I was hoping you would help me popularize them for the proverbial "person in the street."

did you read my last post?

Peter Diammandes, in his book, ABUNDANCE
disagrees that the planet is short of resources. We have plenty, It is just not being distributed correctly.
See the reviews at http://www.amazon.com/Abundance-Future- ... ewpoints=1
The World Game, inspired by R. Buckminster Fuller also backs up, with evidence, that there are no shortages of resources on the planet. Delivery to the right places is required.

that is a half truth. distribution is one part of the problem, not the whole problem.

I contend that education in values is needed so that a critical number of the world population acquire enlightened self interest. Plenty of people care about their self-interest; they just aren't aware that if everyone prospers, we'll all be better off

on this we agree, but our ideas of the path are different. you seem to imagine people will watch the videos or even care about philosophy or wisdom: if the world holds it's status quo: they will not. you have to bring them to philosophy another way. and that is what I'm trying to determine. but I cannot get a decent conversation with great minds who will not leave the box they have designed for a solution to examine other angles. why have you refused to follow my path of discussion? I cannot reach the end game until I know where to start, and I cannot start without an agreement, because solutions are found within agreements. and we cannot reach an agreement until we examine potentials. I can't examine potentials until I can examine a 'most important thing', which if I choose my 'most important thing' it would be irrelevant. It needs to be the person I'm discussing with's 'most important thing'.

IMHO, we need a lot more videos of this nature, and they need to be promoted widely so that they receive a more-adequate viewing.

More important than this is convincing people to care to watch them, that their is a need to watch them. philosophy is so chock full of depth and learned knowledge, an average person will not even open a discussion. yet Socrates would engage in conversation with even the least educated successfully. The global issues are with a globally uneducated people, and educating them is primary, but you have to start with the reasons a layperson will accept, you and I have similar goals, but we are unable to effectively communicate with each other. if you are looking for me to begin discussion with the other articles you wish for me to read, to build on your hypothesis, I simply can't, because I'm still asking you : in light of current events, what is the most important thing? and from there I wish to build argument, and within it, you can bring in points from the works you want me to read, but in conversation style. this will effectively analyze whether or not they can be defended in argument, or if they are built on a fallacy or presupposition that is not adequate in practice.

[prof]

I wrote: "I contend that education in values is needed so that a critical number of the world population acquire enlightened self interest. Plenty of people care about their self-interest; they just aren't aware that if everyone prospers, we'll all be better off "

You wrote in response, "on this we agree, but our ideas of the path are different. you seem to imagine people will watch the videos or even care about philosophy or wisdom: if the world holds it's status quo: they will not."

Yet one of your proposals is "a book of wisdoms". Why would they - given your assumptions - care to read that?

And if we agree on something, which you say we do, then why can't we build on that common ground? Why do you say we have no dialog going, and that "we are unable to effectively communicate with each other"?

I am following the discussion path of the thread, based upon its original post. {Am I the only one here who feels that those who hijack it, and then insist that others are to follow their path have some nerve. They ought to start their own thread.}
The topic is Principles or Policies - Which should take priority? I argue that (moral) principles are to be given top priority, and that good policies would follow from there.

Thus I follow up by offering an ethical theory which derives several principles, over a dozen of them or more, and you, my friend, won't even look at them. You won't study the reasoning involved that deduced those principles; and then you accuse me of not arguing for my claims by giving supporting reasoning !!

I do philosophy - analysis of vague concepts, working to sharpen them up - and others here do protesting and complaining ...at least that's the impression I get.

True, you offered some proposals that were constructive; but when I approved of them you weren't satisfied. I even told you what, in my considered judgment, is most important: namely, that people appreciate the Intrinsic values of life - as explained in detail in the post "What do people yearn for today?" There I argue that some things are more important than money, and the pursuit of it. Furthermore, people already will acknowledge that when confronted. What they really want is a quality life. And they want their life to make a difference.

Somehow you believe we can carry on a conversation without you knowing where I'm coming from.

People defer to science - or at least to its resultant technologies. They switch on a light, or drive a car, and realize that somehow science had something to do with it, with developing it. They know (in the back of their mind) that the electrician and the mechanic had to study some science [such as Mechanics]. Scientists are respected. When they speak people listen. [I'm talking about Western Civilization and the folks they have influenced ...not about those still living in the 15th Century.] We both agree that Education is the solution to major pressing problems.

I hold that a Science of Ethics (emerging of course from "the mother of all the sciences" which is Philosophy) when it gains respectability (for the wonderful technologies which it produces ..such as objectively-scored projective value tests, which are extremely accurate in matching partners, wok teams, the right person for the right job which that person will consider fun to do, couples who will have very-compatible marriages, provide nuanced tools for psychotherapists to avail themselves of, guide teachers as to a subtler knowledge of their students capacities and sensitivities, etc., etc.) when Ethics, the science gains that kind of respect we will have an antidote to runaway physical tech used for purposes that are NOT in our best interest.

Such a test already exists. See Appendix One of the textbook ETHICS: A College Course.

...Enough said for now. Let's stay on topic. People need to become intimately-familiar with Ethical principles - including the vital importance of devoting their life to the Intrinsic values, taking them very personally, making them norms for living. To put it in terms of the new paradigm: Idle reflection on the principles is Systemic; making a commitment to them is Intrinsic ...and hence is worth infinitely more.

[Tesla]

I wrote: "I contend that education in values is needed so that a critical number of the world population acquire enlightened self interest. Plenty of people care about their self-interest; they just aren't aware that if everyone prospers, we'll all be better off "

You wrote in response, "on this we agree, but our ideas of the path are different. you seem to imagine people will watch the videos or even care about philosophy or wisdom: if the world holds it's status quo: they will not."

Yet one of your proposals is "a book of wisdoms". Why would they - given your assumptions - care to read that?

That is what I'm attempting to discover in this thread. it is a matter of value.

And if we agree on something, which you say we do, then why can't we build on that common ground? Why do you say we have no dialog going, and that "we are unable to effectively communicate with each other"?

I am following the discussion path of the thread, based upon its original post. {Am I the only one here who feels that those who hijack it, and then insist that others are to follow their path have some nerve. They ought to start their own thread.}
The topic is Principles or Policies - Which should take priority? I argue that (moral) principles are to be given top priority, and that good policies would follow from there.

I'm arguing that policy is equally important, because people respect consequence. there is wide belief there is more reward for the immoral in today's law and policy. for some it is the only method for survival, as the honest are punished severely.

Thus I follow up by offering an ethical theory which derives several principles, over a dozen of them or more, and you, my friend, won't even look at them. You won't study the reasoning involved that deduced those principles; and then you accuse me of not arguing for my claims by giving supporting reasoning !!

I'm not rejecting your proposal, I'm rejecting your methodology. I wish to debate, not read and react.

I do philosophy - analysis of vague concepts, working to sharpen them up - and others here do protesting and complaining ...at least that's the impression I get.

Philosophy is more liken to continual improvement through recognition of ignorance. to 'do' philosophy is more than analyzing ideas through an academic lens. philosophy is the seeking of wisdom, for the love of wisdom. even the most ignorant can be a philosopher, albeit perhaps not the wisest one.

True, you offered some proposals that were constructive; but when I approved of them you weren't satisfied. I even told you what, in my considered judgment, is most important: namely, that people appreciate the Intrinsic values of life - as explained in detail in the post "What do people yearn for today?" There I argue that some things are more important than money, and the pursuit of it. Furthermore, people already will acknowledge that when confronted. What they really want is a quality life. And they want their life to make a difference.

the species in all of us desires to be a part of and impact our community and have value in it. but to interpret making a difference, or interpret 'quality' is a matter of the highest opinion: our individual opinions. it can be ever changing as circumstances change. To understand that is good enough, because to try to pin down the ever-changing is to generalize.

Somehow you believe we can carry on a conversation without you knowing where I'm coming from.

your coming from your desire to impact and make a difference. I'm desiring a traditional post, not referrals to books and past posts. this post better reflects what I desire in communication here.

People defer to science - or at least to its resultant technologies. They switch on a light, or drive a car, and realize that somehow science had something to do with it, with developing it. They know (in the back of their mind) that the electrician and the mechanic had to study some science [such as Mechanics]. Scientists are respected. When they speak people listen. [I'm talking about Western Civilization and the folks they have influenced ...not about those still living in the 15th Century.] We both agree that Education is the solution to major pressing problems.

your generalizing. I know plenty of Christians that believe the science community is wrong about science, and respect them least of all.

I hold that a Science of Ethics (emerging of course from "the mother of all the sciences" which is Philosophy) when it gains respectability (for the wonderful technologies which it produces ..such as objectively-scored projective value tests, which are extremely accurate in matching partners, wok teams, the right person for the right job which that person will consider fun to do, couples who will have very-compatible marriages, provide nuanced tools for psychotherapists to avail themselves of, guide teachers as to a subtler knowledge of their students capacities and sensitivities, etc., etc.) when Ethics, the science gains that kind of respect we will have an antidote to runaway physical tech used for purposes that are NOT in our best interest.

when everyone agrees on ethics, we have world peace, but even then, it is difficult to establish who is honestly ethical, and who is pretending. I have experienced that those with the most trust and respect have used that trust and respect to commit evil, and hide behind their status as being known ethical--the trusted were the most untrustworthy. knowing ethics does not mean with human faults that it will not be abused. that makes policy very important. but equally important as I maintain.

Such a test already exists. See Appendix One of the textbook ETHICS: A College Course.

...Enough said for now. Let's stay on topic. People need to become intimately-familiar with Ethical principles - including the vital importance of devoting their life to the Intrinsic values, taking them very personally, making them norms for living. To put it in terms of the new paradigm: Idle reflection on the principles is Systemic; making a commitment to them is Intrinsic ...and hence is worth infinitely more.

now see, I am on topic, I desire to determine the importance of both ethics and policy, but you have asserted that ethics is more important, which I reject--ethically---realizing it is too idealistic to bear fruit.

So here is what I wish to examine to discover how to go about teaching ethics, or more importantly, getting people to honestly desire and implement them, is by discovering necessary policy that will be agreed-to in light of current events,--and that starts with the most important thing.

[prof]

Greetings, Tesla

You write: "So what do I believe takes priority? Principle or policy? Neither. Both have equal relevance. But neither have very good definitions. Let’s first do some defining as a nation, a whole voice, not the few, and then with that knowledge let's write good policy."

I argue that if we don't have in our consciousness good moral principles - if we don't know our Ethics - we will not likely create good policy If we want the best policies to come out of our officials, they must have a sense of ethics, that is to say, they must care about people. How we teach them ethics is a problem, but it is do-able.

I suggested we elect only those who already live as though they are persons of character and integrity; who will show devotion to work for a (morally)-better world. It is true, as you mentioned, that some have good acting ability, and can pretend, convincingly, that they are genuinely highly-moral. I believe, though, that the truly authentic can (like a child can) see through phoniness, can detect insincerity. And can, so far, make their findings widely-known, can expose the pretender. ...shine a light on it.

You feel strongly that we had better get busy on doing something about Climate Change, or that (as David Roberts teaches in his TED lecture) by 2015 the damage done will be irreversible and the third rock from the Sun - Earth - will start seeming to resemble planet Mercury, as far as temperature measurement. [And I, for one, respect your views on that !!]

Our species - due to accelerating climate trends by then out of human control - will not be able to tolerate the conditions; we won't find a place to grow the food we like, and we want to eat, due to widespread drought. Even now, today, our corn crop is miserable as a result of drought. The temperature is going to climb to make Hell on Earth, literally. This entails policy changes: reducing drastically greenhouse gas emissions. We MUST stop releasing carbon into our atmosphere as of yesterday. Every time we drive a car that uses gasoline we are contributing to the problem .

So solving this problem is "making the impossible possible" and that is always fun. It's like beating the casino (out of a little money.) IT CAN BE DONE. But first we have to care.

That's where Ethics comes in. It needs to be made part of the curriculum - at every grade level, from primary to college.

That is my prescription.

My essays, which you "haven't the time nor patience to read, are full of emphasis on sustainability, on the necessity to go green, on the need to switch over to renewable energy and on the hidden cost of fossil fuel that is not reckoned into our present-day cost-benefit analyses. I was a friend of Bucky Fuller. {He even introduced me to his lovely granddaughter as a possible prospect to court her ! He wanted to be a matchmaker.} In his masterpiece of a book, CRITICAL PATH, he devotes chapters to the true costs of coal, and of petroleum, that we mine and utilize for our source of energy. We have only been kidding ourselves that it is "cheap." Far from it !!!


Yes, working on Climate Change is most important.

But only if we have a sense of real ethics would we be motivated to get going on it.

So Ethics education takes priority.

I have spoken.