Philosophy Now Forum

Let me reassure the critics:

There is no one way to treat all people.

There is no ONE ideal for a Self.

I have never claimed that there is. I shall never argue that the is.

There are, though, principles that enable folks to function better in groups, principles that make for harmonious human relationships. One of them is to show some modicum of respect to another member of our human species. I know well that it is hard to show any respect to certain individuals. However, this is more for you than for the drunken bum, for the slob, or, say, for Dick Cheney: for if you have self-respect, if you have a noble character, it is you who will refrain from (moral) judgment ....because you don't want to be a 'moralist.'


A student with an inquiring mind once asked me: Is there a real difference between an ethicist and a moralist??

My Response:

Yes, there is a real difference between the two concepts.

An "ethicist" does research in the field of ethics, or applies ethics in his/her profession. Or an ethicist develops ethical theories and systems.

In contrast, a "moralist" is someone who tells others how to live; and often is a prohibitionist of some kind or is a sexual-snoop who is obsessed with sex and functions as a puritanical 'safe-guarder of the morals' delving into what is acceptable to show to the public, etc. A moralist often attempts to scare people by dire warnings.

...Your thoughts on any of these matters?

prof wrote: There are, though, principles that enable folks to function better in groups, principles that make for harmonious human relationships. One of them is to show some modicum of respect to another member of our human species..

If these principles do indeed exist ... what are they? You have listed but one.

How can it be ascertained that one set of principles is any better than another... or even none at all?

For without some such methodology, a set of principles cannot be distinguished from those based on bias, opinion, propaganda and sectarian politics.

A_Seagull it's very nice of you to respond to prof, but it's all in vain.

prof claims to have been a proffessor at a university, which might be true, but currently he has a mentallity of a preteen. Maybe he have had a massive stroke or something since everything he writes doesn't make much sense as it doesn't really cosist of modern concepts, but very oudated and primitive forms of ethics, something one would have expected 200-2000 years ago.
Only good intensions.

I've been with this prof on various sites since 2008, and he doesn't comprehend the difference between moral/ethical good, useful (good) pleasent (good) and practical (good), as he in some of his scribbles confuses ehtical and moral good with the usefulness of a chair, map and other such material things that can't be associated with morally and ethical good.

An allerged proffessor wouldn't make such idiotic mistakes, so I'm quite baffled about him, and I along so many others thinks it's a total waste of time talking to him, as he only seems to want attention and thereby selfimportaince. In the end people on various sites won't bother with him.

..also, if you note he hasn't given much credit to people who have posted long posts explaining various things about ethics, to him. I'm nowhere to be found, as he will write something completely new, thus avoiding giving credits to anyone but himself.

A_Seagull wrote:

prof wrote: There are, though, principles that enable folks to function better in groups, principles that make for harmonious human relationships. One of them is to show some modicum of respect to another member of our human species..

If these principles do indeed exist ... what are they? You have listed but one......

Hi, A_Seagull

I thought I might leave something for you to do: I expected you to do your homework. This means you would look up one of the references I provided in my original post, namely "Ethics in a Nutshell."
At the end of that o.p. I offer a link to a thread posted here at the Ethical Theory Forum with the name: "What is Ethics?" One of those papers cited there - the third link down - is entitled Aspects of Ethics: views through a new lens. On the last page, page 43, just before the Bibliography, I list ten principles. They were derived from the theory, from the Unified Theory of Ethics.

'Aspects' is part IV of the Theory.
M. C. Katz - BASIC ETHICS can be viewed at part V. The original post of this current thread gives an upgrade to part V, by offering an Axiom for Ethics. Folks who want to be ethical, once they gain the insight, and it sinks in,, will strive to make things morally better. This means they will follow some or all of those principles... such as, say, The Principle of Inclusivity ( which came up in the Unified Theory in one of its early parts.) It also means that individuals of good character will look for ways to add value in each situation in which they find themselves.

Because I respect you, and trusting that you know how to do research, and that you can find a thread posted a while back at this Forum, I shall leave it up to you to find the link. Okay?

To save you some effort, here is a link to What is Ethics?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9409