Philosophy Now Forum

Obvious Leo wrote:

prof wrote: Do you believe a good Ethical Theory should be applicable to life?

Harbal wrote:There seems little point in applying a bad one.

1. How would one be able to tell the difference?

2. If such a difference existed would it be universally applicable?

Yes, Leo, I know but I couldn't think of anything meaningful to say. At least you can't accuse me of not being consistent.

Harbal. I'm wondering if there is anything meaningful which indeed can be said about the notion of a "good" ethical theory. In science a theory is a very well defined construct in that it is composed of a suite of propositions which can be empirically tested against whatever predictions they yield concerning the behaviour of matter and energy in nature. In this sense it is a value neutral knowledge statement which is held as true until some clever bugger comes along with a better one but it is never held as Truth in any absolute sense of the word. A theory is a model of the world which reflects the preconceived narrative of the observer of it and the effectiveness of the theory in making predictions is thus extremely vulnerable to confirmation bias. We see what we want to see, or more precisely we see what we expect to see.

The same principle must surely apply to the notion of an ethical theory. Instead of wringing our hands in angst over the idea of a "good" ethical theory its strikes me as probably more useful to consider the notion of an effective ethical theory, which allows us to then modify such a theory in the light of changing circumstances. This seems to me to more accurately reflect my own life's experience of many of our notions of ethical behaviour. Even in my own lifetime the goalposts have been rapidly shifting when it comes to many traditional definitions of ethical conduct and in all likelihood this trend will continue for long after I shuffle timidly off this mortal coil.

How then are we to determine whether the shifting sands of ethical behaviour are "effective"? I guess we can only fall back on the age-old trope of the definition of a meaningful life. Surely the best we can hope for is that when we depart this world we leave it a better place than it was when we came into it and that our own puny efforts have made some minuscule contribution towards this progress.

It goes without saying that the whole idea of ethical "progress" obviously opens up yet another Pandora's box of worms, red herrings and mixed metaphors but I think we're slowly getting there.

Obvious Leo wrote:

prof wrote: Do you believe a good Ethical Theory should be applicable to life?

Harbal wrote:There seems little point in applying a bad one.

1. How would one be able to tell the difference?

"Experience without theory is blind, but theory without
experience is mere intellectual play."
- Kant

Leo, Harbal, and to whomever it might concern:

A list of criteria enabling one to discern the difference between a good ethical theory and those which are not as good is readily available in the document, M. C. Katz - ETHICAL EXPLORATIONS, Here is a link to it:

http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ONS%20.pdf
see pp.39-41.
Also relevant there is the discussion,, presented in dialogue form, on pp. 16-17 with the topic title: 'The Value of Ethics.'

Was this helpful?

p.s., You may also want to check out a more recent brochure, and judge its merits:

See: SUCCESSFUL LIVING: How to have a quality life -
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/Su ... 20life.pdf

Leo, I'm not sure what an ethical theory is. I'm assuming prof meant a theory concerning ethics rather than a theory that is ethical but, that being the case, I still don't know what exactly he means. I suppose ethics, at base, is about arriving at a consensus of what is acceptable behaviour. In reality there will always be a wide range of opinions regarding what constitutes acceptable behaviour, therefore, we can never realistically expect to have a universally agreed upon system of ethics. As this is my point of view regarding ethics I can't see much point in getting involved in a debate about what is or isn't "good ethics" so, having nothing to say on the subject, instead I made a throw away remark about the quality of Bill Wiltrack's ramblings. Prof, for some reason known only to himself, decided the motivation behind the said remark needed investigating and presented me with something similar to a questionnaire to complete. Not wanting to offend prof, I decided to humour him by providing answers to his questions in the hope that it would be an end to the matter but, sadly, that wasn't to be and I seem to have managed to get myself embroiled in a situation which a small amount of foresight should have enabled me to avoid. So, Leo, all I can say is that I hope I come away from this regrettable incident having learned a lesson

Leo, Harbal, and to whomever it might concern:

A list of criteria enabling one to discern the difference between a good ethical theory and those which are not as good is readily available in the document, M. C. Katz - ETHICAL EXPLORATIONS, Here is a link to it:

Forget it, prof, I'm alredy in far deeper than I want to be.

Harbal wrote: So, Leo, all I can say is that I hope I come away from this regrettable incident having learned a lesson.

Ignore Bill Wiltrack is a lesson we could all take to heart, Yorky. I share your understanding of ethics as being nothing more than a mutually agreed code of moral conduct designed to oil the wheels of the social contract. My mum would just have called it good manners although Donald Trump might be inclined to call it political correctness.

OMG

Could a better lesson be learned?

Is it the case that perhaps, because a little study (work) is involved, one does not want to learn a better lesson?? ....I hope not.

Ethics is indeed (among other features) a mutually agreed code of moral conduct designed to oil the wheels of the social contract ...and it includes good manners. This is not a definition of it, however.

The idea of implementing a planetary-wide ethic entails more mutual agreement - but on what? That is the point of reading and studying the paper, SUCCESSFUL LIVING: How to have a quality life. http://tinyurl.com/zkuphdq
For if one likes the points it makes, one might be inclined to pass them on.

If each of us assumes the role of teacher, and passes along the memes contained therein, by all the means you can creatively think of, employing every educational tool, such as You Tube, narrative stories, etc., at your disposal, there is some chance that the human species would share the same ideals, and strive to live by the same principles.

Incidentally, Bill W. has fought hard for human rights for many years of his life; he has excellent values. At some sacrifice to himself he has worked to liberate you and I by gaining us a standard of safer working conditions, and a higher quality of living. He has worked for civil rights also. He is a force for good in this world, and ought to be respected and thanked for all he has done. He is a man of eminently good character. As a bonus he has a fine sense of humor, which he shares with us to lighten up our day.

prof wrote:
Incidentally, Bill W. has fought hard for human rights for many years of his life; he has excellent values. At some sacrifice to himself he has worked to liberate you and I by gaining us a standard of safer working conditions, and a higher quality of living. He has worked for civil rights also. He is a force for good in this world, and ought to be respected and thanked for all he has done. He is a man of eminently good character. As a bonus he has a fine sense of humor, which he shares with us to lighten up our day.

I don't find sarcasm very funny.

Ethics is barely alive in this world existing mostly as a theory in philosophy. Ethics is universally trumped by business and power interests. There will be no change in that format coming anytime soon and the kinds of perversity which exist in the system now will only be augmented. Having good character as examined by ethics is for most an appearance on a social level only but somewhat inconvenient as a coping device when faced with the power and wealth methodologies active at every level.

Dubious wrote:Ethics is barely alive in this world existing mostly as a theory in philosophy.

There are many people today who live ethically, for the most part.

Yes businesses often cheat and cut corners. Yet there are some honest businesses. There are some worker-owned co-ops. There are some (exceptional) business owners who show equal concern for their customers, their staff, and their community ...as well, of course, to their profits.

Yes power follows from wealth, and those with the gold make the rules. And According to Credit Suisse, the United States is expected to have 16.9 million millionaires by 2017 — a 53 percent increase from America’s total of 11 million millionaires today.

Leo writes " Having good character as examined by ethics is for most an appearance on a social level only..."
I humbly disagree. It is a practical and prudential way to live. Good people can cope -- with all kinds of situations. Those with good character engage in self-improvement, and thus learn skills in many areas that result in improved social interaction with individuals of every economic class and caste. They become god listeners and can give others the attention they crave. They learn how to express gratitude in several tongues other than their own native tongue. They radiate love and good will. They learn to ignore irrelevant and undesirable behavior, and how and when to reinforce good behavior. They certainly CAN cope.

prof wrote: Leo writes " Having good character as examined by ethics is for most an appearance on a social level only..."

It's questionable whether LEO would agree with this

prof wrote: Leo writes " Having good character as examined by ethics is for most an appearance on a social level only..."

On a point of order, prof, I didn't make this statement and it doesn't quite represent my position. What I more specifically mean is that ethical conduct is generally defined according to the cultural zeitgeist of the times we live in.

As an example. My father was a successful businessman in the fifties and sixties when it was common practice that female employees should be paid at a significantly lower hourly rate then their male counterparts. This was just the way things were done and my father would have been committing commercial suicide and putting the livelihoods of many people in jeopardy by doing things any differently, so in essence this was to him not a meaningful ethical question at all. However this was also the era in which I grew up and by the time the seventies rolled around this commonly accepted practice had become very much an ethical question and a subject of furious social debate. I was a child of the counter-culture as well as an early adopter of the principles of the sisterhood and what my father saw as perfectly acceptable moral conduct struck me as utterly unacceptable on ethical grounds. You may rest assured that we argued vehemently on this point at the time and yet we can now laugh indulgently with each other over the intensity of our former disagreement. Although we were taking diametrically opposed positions on exactly the same question both of us were morally "right" in doing so because we were looking at the question from different points of view.

Do you disagree?

Dubious wrote:

prof wrote: Leo writes " Having good character as examined by ethics is for most an appearance on a social level only..."

It's questionable whether LEO would agree with this

You beat me to it, mate.

Incidentally, and in the interests of full disclosure, I am ethically bound to make a significant confession with respect to the above example. With the benefit of hindsight the main reason why I so readily adopted the principles of the women's movement during this era was because it was the only way to successfully get into the pants of the women to whom I was attracted at this time. Ultimately pragmatism will always trump ethics in a heartbeat and it is a natural human foible to rationalise our behavior after the event.

Obvious Leo wrote:

prof wrote: my position... ethical conduct is generally defined according to the cultural zeitgeist of the times we live in.

As an example. My father was a successful businessman in the fifties and sixties when it was common practice that female employees should be paid at a significantly lower hourly rate then their male counterparts. This was just the way things were done and my father would have been committing commercial suicide and putting the livelihoods of many people in jeopardy by doing things any differently, so in essence this was to him not a meaningful ethical question at all. However this was also the era in which I grew up and by the time the seventies rolled around this commonly accepted practice had become very much an ethical question and a subject of furious social debate. I was a child of the counter-culture as well as an early adopter of the principles of the sisterhood and what my father saw as perfectly acceptable moral conduct struck me as utterly unacceptable on ethical grounds. You may rest assured that we argued vehemently on this point at the time and yet we can now laugh indulgently with each other over the intensity of our former disagreement. Although we were taking diametrically opposed positions on exactly the same question both of us were morally "right" in doing so because we were looking at the question from different points of view.

And later, you add: "in the interests of full disclosure, I am ethically bound to make a significant confession with respect to the above example. With the benefit of hindsight the main reason why I so readily adopted the principles of the women's movement during this era was because it was the only way to successfully get into the pants of the women to whom I was attracted at this time. Ultimately pragmatism will always trump ethics in a heartbeat and it is a natural human foible to rationalise our behavior after the event."

Greetings, Leo

Thank you for a truthful and honest analysis of why you avoided the ethical error of genderism. I appreciate your sincere and transparent conversation with us !

You reveal that both Freud (who emphasized the sex drive as being a primary need and motivator, especially for the male animal) and wAbraham Maslow (who proposed a hierarchy of human needs - a model that has been so reasonable and effective that his original essay proposing it has been reprinted over 100 times in anthologies and business reports) were both on the right track in their attempts to build an explanatory system.

I agree that needs dominate much of our behavior, and in Ch. 4, entitled "Human Nature, its cause and effect: a framework for understanding human motivation" in a book SCIENCES OF MAN AND SOCIAL ETHICS Branden Press, 1969), I wrote an explanation of many human pursuits by applying R. S. Harman's Formal Axiology to Maslow's 'Hierarchy of Needs' model. The critical reviews were very kind and appreciative of this contribution. I agree that you know yourself, and you understand why you took the position you did ...upholding equal rights for women as well as men.

Everything you said about a theory being a model of the world, and how we should strive for an effective ethical theory I completely agree with Yet you seemed to back up Harbal when he wrote:

: "...ethics, at base, is about arriving at a consensus of what is acceptable behaviour. In reality there will always be a wide range of opinions regarding what constitutes acceptable behaviour, therefore, we can never realistically expect to have a universally agreed upon system of ethics. As this is my point of view regarding ethics I can't see much point in getting involved in a debate about what is or isn't "good ethics"..."

Allow me to make this observation. Let us not conflate "mores" with "morals" (in the sense of personal values and principles, personally-held by an individual.) When you speak of how women's rights have evolved, culturally speaking, you are discussing mores, and the evolution of moral sensitivity - as expressed in the mores of a culture. I did quite a bit of that too in the document, BASIC ETHICS: A systematic approach, and in other writings. Mores are customs. I agree with the evidence presented of growth in sensitivity, and in the resulting ethical practices.

Highly relevant to this: see pages 20-22 and pp. 24-28 in BASIC ETHICS - http://bg.ht/nLJfi

and see also
ETHICS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: Keys to the good life (2015)
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ET ... ENTURY.pdf

Also let us avoid views bordering on Ethical Nihilism and Ethical Relativity (when it implies that scientific Ethics is only Cultural relativity.) Yes, both are temporal and shifting, and evolving. A discipline of study and research, however, exploring images of human beings and how they get along with each other, and how and whether they are true to themselves ... such a discipline can be increasing effective as a Model of-models generating technologies that encourage us, and enable us, to fulfill our potentials, become more humane and compassionate, value each other, continuously add value to human encounters and interactions.

Comments?

Questions?

Discussion?

Maybe I'm just an ordinary bloke who's come to terms with his biology and doesn't need any bullshit to justify the way he interacts with the world around him.

My question { - and let's take a poll -} to some ordinary blokes and other gentlemen who hold the view that there is no point to constructing an ethical theory since culture and biology, or desires and emotions, determine human interaction is this:

Why do you come to a site on the topic "Ethical Theory"????

is it just for the good fellowship and scintillating conversation?

The theory I have proposed suggests experiments that can be done to confirm the models; it delves into the ethical implications for political science, for economics, and for parenting, as well as character development.

Please respond to the poll question.....