Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: Got to be honest, though: not so impressed with most languaged folks I run across, so...

prof wrote:Human nature, the basis of human communication, is not fixed and immutable. In the course of evolution and the growth of culture and civilization human beings, through adaptation, acquired some moral knowledge that perhaps, we speculate, primitives did not have.

What lends the thesis plausibility is that we see the recapitulation of this process in each individual as one grows and matures. We notice that human individuals - granted, with some exceptions - go through a process of development as they grow in years. Individuals develop in moral insight as their brain makes more neural connections.

We conclude from this that Nature has endowed us with the potential capacity to be aware of some specific truths: namely, an ability to discern right from wrong, an obligation to keep promises, pay back debts, tell the truth, recognize Justice, and sense injustice. Most members of the human species have this moral sense. That is the term Psychologists give it; Ethicists speak of it as our “conscience.”
Brain Neurologists inform us that we are pre-wired with the capacity.

Mencius (c. 372—289 B.C.E.) held the view that human beings share an innate goodness that either can be cultivated through education and self-discipline or squandered through neglect and negative influences, but never lost altogether.

Many people today, however, have desensitized their conscience. They have put it asleep. The job of those who care is to reawaken it. And, it should be noted, human beings have a unique capacity to create value: to upgrade, innovate, enhance, improve upon, heal, soothe, entertain, elate, appreciate, enjoy, and find common areas of agreement.

Today we know that by effective methods of education Ethics can be taught, just as gymnastics or music appreciation can be, and is being taught. Moral education – Ethics - is a field of knowledge as is Chemistry or as is Nutrition. It is a fact that Ethics, the unified theory of M. C. Katz, adds to the useful information in this world, for it spells out the basic structure of Justice, of conscience, of Integrity. It defines with some rigor the terms “morality,” “good character,” “value creation.” It provides us with a sense of priorities, and with concepts well-worth knowing!

Further details on the nature of human nature can be found on pp. 48-49 here: http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ETHICS.pdf

also here on pp. 24-28: http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz

and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27 ... y_of_needs


Comments? Questions?

henry quirk wrote:I aim to please.

prof wrote:It sounds as if you stopped reading the booklet when you got to page 14. While there is no fixed human good, we would be better off if we all had adequate food, clothing and shelter along with liberty and autonomy, as well as harmonious human relationships. Do you not agree that if we put an end to war and violence we would do better? And if every member of the species had an opportunity for advancement if they so chose, a chance to improve their lot, wouldn't we live in a better world?

I am suggesting a common ethic; I'm even proposing one. A Science of Ethics would be for the whole world just as a Science of Geology is, or a Science of Medicine. Its findings all are tentative and falsifiable (not based on superstition nor on idle speculation.) In order to be ready for science, ethics needs first to have more of its crucial terms well-defined and coherently related to one another. {Analogously, in (the history of) Chemistry they first had to discover that air was a mixture of several gasses, not just one gas, before they could make further progress.}

I might casually suggest that a look at some of the other threads here by prof wouldn't hurt ...to give one the background as to how it would all work.

Breath wrote:

prof wrote:It sounds as if you stopped reading the booklet when you got to page 14. While there is no fixed human good, we would be better off if we all had adequate food, clothing and shelter along with liberty and autonomy, as well as harmonious human relationships. Do you not agree that if we put an end to war and violence we would do better? And if every member of the species had an opportunity for advancement if they so chose, a chance to improve their lot, wouldn't we live in a better world?

I am suggesting a common ethic; I'm even proposing one. A Science of Ethics would be for the whole world just as a Science of Geology is, or a Science of Medicine. Its findings all are tentative and falsifiable (not based on superstition nor on idle speculation.) In order to be ready for science, ethics needs first to have more of its crucial terms well-defined and coherently related to one another. {Analogously, in (the history of) Chemistry they first had to discover that air was a mixture of several gasses, not just one gas, before they could make further progress.}

I might casually suggest that a look at some of the other threads here by prof wouldn't hurt ...to give one the background as to how it would all work.

I don't do homework, sorry. If I need to read through reams and reams to understand a point someone is making, I agree with Einstein that the author probably doesn't have a real good grip on the subject.

I agree with you that the world would be a much better place without sociopaths. Still, saying there should not or ought not to be sociopaths doesn't make it so.

What is the next scientifically ethical step to take?

Breath

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
The next step to take is to stop blaming everything on a certain group of people. This message isn't just for you, but the human race. Sociopath is a made up word to avoid self-reflection. Everyone is a sociopath to some degree. Stop villianising small groups of people and realize the problem is YOU, the human race itself. Until you acknoledge your own guilt you will never improve. Not to mention, many sociopaths are caused by the world itself. The world quickly disavows any blame in the matter, the world ignores it produces villians, and the world perpetuates it's false and dirty innocence, continuing the madness.

You don't just "put and end to war". First you must realize that it is in your nature to war. Only when you realize that war is part of your nature will you overcome your nature.

Breath wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
The next step to take is to stop blaming everything on a certain group of people. This message isn't just for you, but the human race. Sociopath is a made up word to avoid self-reflection. Everyone is a sociopath to some degree. Stop villianising small groups of people and realize the problem is YOU, the human race itself. Until you acknoledge your own guilt you will never improve. Not to mention, many sociopaths are caused by the world itself. The world quickly disavows any blame in the matter, the world ignores it produces villians, and the world perpetuates it's false and dirty innocence, continuing the madness.

You don't just "put and end to war". First you must realize that it is in your nature to war. Only when you realize that war is part of your nature will you overcome your nature.

The behaviour of people precedes them being grouped together. Folks who think it is, for example, their divine right to enslave others, might well be grouped into a group called slavers. It is not true that everyone is a slaver to a certain extent. Myriads of people fought against slavery, and won. That has not, mind you, made the mindset of the slaver disappear.

Likewise, there are and were people who would travel to lands inhabited by other civilisations, plant a flag on the soil, and then go and decimate the aboriginal populations, and claim the land as their own. By their behaviour, they might be grouped into a group called marauding fucking bastards. It is not true that everyone is a marauding fucking bastard to a certain extent. Myriads of people have fought against, and upended colonialism. That doesn't mean that there aren't those who would , given the opportunity, do a rerun of colonialism.

I (and myriads of others who value others as equals) am not the problem in, for example, slavery and colonialism, but it is a problem for us.

Breath