Philosophy Now Forum

Prof wrote:

The three major schools of thought in academic ethics are Virtue
Theory (VT); Consequentialism; and Deontology. The latter is
concerned with promises, contracts, rights, duties, obligations and
imperatives (which it claims are universal and categorical.)

The small social corner that I occupy is hardly going to make any difference at all, Prof. I publish nothing.

Please would you tell a little more about deontology? In particular I was thinking that duty ("stern daughter of the voice of God") same as all of the gods can do only what is possible. So promises, contracts, rights, duties, obligations and imperatives must be subservient to the imperative of possibility. Faith and courage matter so also do reason and information and these four qualities at least are needed by duty before she can be ethical.

Second question, if you will: A theory of human nature enters into my thoughts about the deontological basis for ethics as human nature whatever that may be sets parameters for what is possible. I'm not sure that human nature matters much for consequentialism or Virtue Theory.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 3:31 pm Prof wrote:

The three major schools of thought in academic ethics are Virtue
Theory (VT); Consequentialism; and Deontology. The latter is
concerned with promises, contracts, rights, duties, obligations and
imperatives (which it claims are universal and categorical.)

The small social corner that I occupy is hardly going to make any difference at all, Prof. I publish nothing.

You are too modest here, Belinda. You cannot say in advance that if you "plant a seed" (communicate an idea) it will not sprout by being passed along; and maybe reaching someone who is a master-communicator, as was Tom Paine, and later John Hancock {in the early years when the U.S.-to-be was first contemplating independence from a colonial power, namely your current home base.}

Please would you tell a little more about deontology? In particular I was thinking that duty ("stern daughter of the voice of God") same as all of the gods can do only what is possible. So promises, contracts, rights, duties, obligations and imperatives must be subservient to the imperative of possibility. Faith and courage matter so also do reason and information and these four qualities at least are needed by duty before she can be ethical.
My contribution to Ethical theory is a synthesis of all the schools and rival theories, so I am the wrong one to ask about Deontology in isolation. Ask instead one who is a devotee of that school of thought.

With regard to "duty", I see it this way: If one elects to be a custodian as a noble profession, then he or she (on or before being hired) is given a list of job-requirements (=duties). And if s/he performs them well s/he gets to be called a Building Engineer. Seeing to it that each duty on that list is done, and is done with excellence, is what "duty" is all about - to my mind. Also this same meaning applies to civil servants, government workers, relatively-unskilled [when compared with high-tech] types of work of every sort. They get a list of well-delineated tasks that are expected of them. {The employeees of Facebook, and of the early Google corporation have much, much better working conditions than do other workers To be fair to all, let's arrange for that to set a precedent, be a model for other companies to follow!}

Also, when I hear the concept "duty" mentioned, I think of the military: every member of it takes a pledge to "do his duty", i.e., to obey the orders of someone of a station above him, and to keep his pledges and stand by his oaths. ...And if necessary to engage in self-sacrifice "for his country." [In practice, he acts with empathy and compassion for his buddies, with whom he has come to identify. It is for them he does something heroic, when he does.]

Second question, if you will: A theory of human nature enters into my thoughts about the deontological basis for ethics as human nature whatever that may be sets parameters for what is possible. I'm not sure that human nature matters much for consequentialism or Virtue Theory.

I hold that a theory of human nature matters much for all the traditional schools as well as for any new contemporary theories of ethics. So it is incumbent of us to keep abreast of the latest findings of Brain Neurology, Cognitive Psychology, Behavioral Ethics, Behavioral Economics, and of all the other social sciences.

I lean more toward Virtue Theory in all its very-latest forms, as being more subtle than the other schools, since it is keenly aware of our vices, and how they can corrupt us, and lead us into unwise temptations that can hurt others or do harm. However, I don't subscribe to any ism with the exception of optimism - which R.S. Hartman taught me is defined as: finding the good in a situation. To illustrate: "Man, I just escaped narrowly from a car crash; thus I am a lucky person!!!" "That's a good nag. Don't call it a "bad horse." "So many people reside in this good slum. Let's help them somehow to get into decent homes or condos."


Comments and questions welcomed. ...if asked respectfully. Belinda has shown the way!
Veritas Aequitas, you had the right tone also, but your thesis was indeed off-topic.

Recall how Christians behaved when they committed The Inquisition. Moslems can yet listen to their ethical and moral Imam's teachings for everyone to be nonviolent. Then, as a result of wising up, the young men (or women) who volunteer may eventually grow out of their Islamist low-level warfare: what they regard as "counter-terrorism"

Prof, I think that human nature is so much culture-led that it's impossible to know what it is. True, we are anatomically "poor forked animals" and so on. Neurologically and anatomically we are different from other animals by degrees but not different by kind.

This leads me to criticise value ethics. Personally I attempt value ethics. However I'm content to identify with my culture which is probably the same as your own. There are various moral systems among the past and present cultures of humanity. And there is no objective measure of which moral system is the better and which the worse. Therefore anybody discussing ethics should state their criteria. Criteria may include empirical naturalistic ones such as maternal love, metaphysical ones such as ontology of God, or deductive reason like the basis of Spinoza's great theory Ethics.

The limitation of what we can know is, precisely, ethics itself. The great thing is to tolerate ethical differences as much as possible, "possible" referring to intersubjective moral tenets. The latter are in difficulties owning to the demise of religious laws. This last paragraph of mine is subjective too of course. As we know there are many people who subscribe to no ethic of toleration of differences between individuals and cultures.

Prof wrote:

Recall how Christians behaved when they committed The Inquisition. Moslems can yet listen to their ethical and moral Imam's teachings for everyone to be nonviolent. Then, as a result of wising up, the young men (or women) who volunteer may eventually grow out of their Islamist low-level warfare: what they regard as "counter-terrorism"

You are probably right. However that's not an argument for an ethic of non-violence, it's an assertion that non-violence is right.You should at least argue for or against the idea of a just war, or the justice of violence.Perhaps you do so elsewhere.

I'm not sure, but I suspect that if there is a super-ethic it's there should be something rather than nothing.

BTW I take it that 'ethics' is synonymous with 'moral philossophy'. I think perhaps that what Prof means by 'ethics' is 'moral tenets'.

prof wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:09 am I wrote:

Currently, I am writing a book, which hopefully will be out on or before the year 2020, entitled THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS: Achieving Moral Clarity.

Then Eodnhoj7 wrote:

What is the rational metaphysical foundation for this ethics?

Hi, there
It all depends upon what you mean by "metaphysical." Please define it with some care for us.
If it means what I think it means, you are asking me to reproduce for you here the entire 100-page book I'm wring

{Actually, it may not turn out to be 100 pages, but maybe only about 80 pages, or so.Still, you are asking a lot: the book isn't even finished yet. I am adding a chapter on "What is an ethical business?" and a chapter on how it all applies to good government.

Once I hear how you define with some precision that vague concept 'metaphysical,' I will be able to respond more intelligently. Okay?

All ethics and morality is rooted in a way to be. For some being is rooted in a religious faith, for others it is rooted in a personal philosophy, others take a secular approach, some are hedonists, some are more ascetic, so on and so forth.

Now none of these methods or perspectives necessarily have to be separated, but none the less they are considering people exist with and through groups of corresponding of similar perspectives on what "being" is. We live in a world of social pockets which in appearance seems to be more magnified than prior generations and ways of life.

How do you approach the question of "being"? And I am not trying to play word games or even criticize, it is a legitimate question.

prof wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 7:50 amEvolution, I would argue, is the opposite of entropy; and we are evolving, on this planet, away from tribalism and toward planetary awareness, toward planetary citizenship. We are all one human family, and some day we will realize it.

Your informed comments are welcome!

And, when you evolve further away from just planetary awareness and citizenship and toward Universal awareness, towards Universal citizenship, THEN you will reach and achieve the Ethics that you are searching for, and so dearly now desire.

Planetary awareness and citizenship is just another form of tribalism and narrowed-viewed vision, and, to me this vision is as old, in the evolution process is, as cave awareness, dwelling, and citizenship is, to you.

Realizing that ALL of YOU are one human family was realized ages ago. Watching you ALL behave the way you do towards YOUR own SELVES, can be rather entertaining some times. But observing the way you create the arsenals of weapons that you do, in the BELIEF that you NEED to "protect" yourselves is absolutely hilarious. The obvious FACT that the ONLY REAL danger, in the whole of the Universe, (which by the way most of you can NOT yet even fathom how big that is) IS your OWN selves, and that YOU are TRYING TO "PROTECT" yourselves from your own SELVES is really rather glaringly STUPID, and extremely amusing to SEE at times. But, sitting here, observing the one human family called humanity being led by your OWN stupidity DOWN the path to 'hell' that you are heading towards now, which WILL BE your own destruction and desecration is really concerning, as this is just a complete waste of what was going to be a Truly Intelligent Species. KNOWING the actual reason WHY you are ALL still continually killing each other, in other words YOUR-OWN-SELF, through wars and pollution, and KNOWING how quickly, simply, and easily you could ALL STOP, turn around, and head back UP in the right direction, towards the Universal 'heaven' and PEACE can be at times very frustrating. As this KNOWLEDGE is deep within you, but you, yourselves, are preventing and blocking your-own-selves from RELEASING, and REALIZING, It yet.

The reason you are ALL preventing AND blocking this KNOWLEDGE, from being released, revealed, and thus eventually realized. is because of your assumptions AND beliefs, which are caused by your dishonesty and closededness

Dishonesty and making assumptions prevents you from SEEING, understanding this KNOWLEDGE, or Ethics.
Being closed and having beliefs blocks, or stops, you from SEEING, understanding the KNOWLEDGE or Ethics.

Honesty is the key to unlocking the door/s to ALL the mysteries of HOW to gain this wisdom.
Not making assumptions allows you to gain a much clearer and better understanding.
Disregarding all beliefs allows you to SEE things for what they really ARE.
Being completely open allows ALL the, so called, "mysteries" to be obtained and understood. This then allows you to learn just HOW to explain ALL of this KNOWLEDGE, and Ethics, better and more concisely, succinctly, and sufficiently, so that ALL of THIS is then better understood by EVERY one.

Prof,
I read some of the works cited.

The question of "why should I be moral?" needs a more complete answer than self-interest. There needs to be a bit of logic that is really easy to remember. If someone has "solved" Ethics, then I think they deserve the Nobel prize and their theory should be discussed at every dinner table. The efficacy of the argument would be based on the "one-liners" that can be remembered easily by the public.

Two statements that would rationally convince me to be moral are: 1) The statement that "humans can be evil entities" has been proven false. It is possible that no evil entities exist in the world (if it were proven true, this should save humanity from itself) and all that it would take for human fulfillment is to harmonize that which is already naturally good. 2) It has been proven that we are each instances of a singular consciousness. It is possible (but hasn't been proven) that there is only one singular consciousness from which we each have a lens. Thereby there would be no selfishness because the other is accepted as an instance of one's self.

I think #1 can be proven and it is just a matter of time. I hope that this proof gets the airtime and dinner-time conversation it deserves.

TryingMyBest wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:25 pm Prof,
I read some of the works cited.

The question of "why should I be moral?" needs a more complete answer than self-interest. There needs to be a bit of logic that is really easy to remember. If someone has "solved" Ethics, then I think they deserve the Nobel prize and their theory should be discussed at every dinner table. The efficacy of the argument would be based on the "one-liners" that can be remembered easily by the public.

Two statements that would rationally convince me to be moral are: 1) The statement that "humans can be evil entities" has been proven false. It is possible that no evil entities exist in the world (if it were proven true, this should save humanity from itself) and all that it would take for human fulfillment is to harmonize that which is already naturally good. 2) It has been proven that we are each instances of a singular consciousness. It is possible (but hasn't been proven) that there is only one singular consciousness from which we each have a lens. Thereby there would be no selfishness because the other is accepted as an instance of one's self.

I think #1 can be proven and it is just a matter of time. I hope that this proof gets the airtime and dinner-time conversation it deserves.

Morality can be rooted in self interest if others are viewed as extensions of the self.

Considering all human observation is connected through point space, where the basic dot is the basic fundamental act of measuring in consciousness, there is evidence from a perspective where everything is premised in space that we are all connected yet have separate identities at the same time.

TryingMyBest wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:25 pm The question of "why should I be moral?" needs a more complete answer than self-interest. There needs to be a bit of logic that is really easy to remember. If someone has "solved" Ethics, then I think they deserve the Nobel prize and their theory should be discussed at every dinner table. The efficacy of the argument would be based on the "one-liners" that can be remembered easily by the public.

Isn't "morality is in your best interest" a great one-liner?

To expand on this is to over-complicate the issue.

prof wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 7:50 am I may be wrong.......

ok.


Reciprocity is old school ethics from prehistory to today.

TryingMyBest wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:25 pm Prof,
I read some of the works cited.

That speaks well of you. You are open-minded enough to expose yourself to new ideas.



The question of "why should I be moral?" needs a more complete answer than self-interest. There needs to be a bit of logic that is really easy to remember ...[the] theory should be discussed at every dinner table. The efficacy of the argument would be based on the "one-liners" that can be remembered easily by the public.

Ask people you meet: Isn’t it true that morality is in our best-interest? (By “morality” is meant: becoming the best that a human being can be and become; a person being true to himself or herself; living by principle, having standards.)
If you agree, then the question arises: What are we doing to make this a more moral society?


...all that it would take for human fulfillment is to harmonize that which is already naturally good.

That is a brilliant insight ! I’m proud to be discussing with someone as wise as you.


I think [that the idea I mentioned] can be proven and it is just a matter of time. I hope that this proof gets the airtime and dinner-time conversation it deserves.

Thank you. I trust that this applies also to the writings by yours truly that you studied. You are kind. I get the impression that you practice Ethics, live ethically.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:54 am
I presumed you are academically based thus has reasonable intellectual competence.

Surely you cannot judge the ideology of a religion from few Muslims or even the majority.

Example, the essence and ethos of what is Nazism is contained with Mein Kempf literally, i.e. not based on the subjective opinions of its members.
Thus the essence, ethos and authority of Islam has to be from the immutable direct words of Allah as contained in the Quran.

First of all, the whole "I'll assume you're academically competent" thing is pretty nauseating. Don't try to signal to us that you're clever by judging other peoples' competencies. Just make your point; I promise you nothing you've said is so clever that it needs serious academic training to understand.

I think you're completely wrong about the essence of an ideology being restricted to a central text. Islam has lots of sources of authority which influence the beliefs and practices of Muslims. The various schools of jurisprudence, the imams, the ayatollahs; these all have a big influence on the religion, and they don't always share the same interpretation of the Quran.

This is very similar to Catholicism - what the Pope and the Bishops say is what Catholics usually take as gospel. They don't just read the Bible and use that as their sole source of divine wisdom.

This was true with Nazism as well; Nazism evolved a great deal from its 1925 form, when Hitler wrote Mein Kampf. It was also a lot more complex than the glimpse of it we get in Mein Kampf. It meant different things to different people - still does.

You don't really get to decide what constitutes the core of an ideology, even if you have - academically - read the central texts. The central text of communism is the Communist Manifesto, but Bucharin might have disagreed with some of it. That doesn't mean he wasn't a communist.

prof wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:09 am Hi, there
It all depends upon what you mean by "metaphysical." Please define it with some care for us.

You're writing a book about ethics but cannot define metaphysics?

This does not compute. Ethics is metaphysics.

PeteJ wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:41 am

prof wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:09 am Hi, there
It all depends upon what you mean by "metaphysical." Please define it with some care for us.

You're writing a book about ethics but cannot define metaphysics?

This does not compute. Ethics is metaphysics.

I agree Pete. No use havering on about metaphysical matters unless one aims to enlighten one's ethics. Truth, yes. But truth also enlightens ethics.

I'm not commenting on Age's claims or theory, I'm only commenting on the necessary connection between metaphysics and ethics/

PeteJ wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:41 am This does not compute. Ethics is metaphysics.

And metaphysics is just logic.

Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do. --Donald Knuth

Which goes on with what I was saying in the AI ethics thread: You can't explain ethics to a computer because the concept is too complex.You are unable to simplify it any further.

You are banging your head against Irreducible complexity because our languages suck.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 2:16 pm

PeteJ wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:41 am This does not compute. Ethics is metaphysics.

And metaphysics is just logic.

Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do. --Donald Knuth

Which goes on with what I was saying in the AI ethics thread: You can't explain ethics to a computer because the concept is too complex.You are unable to simplify it any further.

Your ethical theory seems to state that ethics is complicated. Mine states it is simple. Either way, nothing can be explained to computer.