Chaz, my friend, isn't it so that folks will get further in life by being jovial than by being petty.
A
moralist may have "a specific set of rules pre-devised to be imposed upon others."
This scribbler, yours truly, in contrast, is an Ethical scientist (
i.e., one who is part of a team working on constructing a real science of Ethics to take a place alongside Physics.) In science all the definitions, terms, and relations are
tentative, subject to revision when better models come along. Any principles derived are also subject to revision and improvement. Ethical theory is not to be confused with ethical practice ...with the actual living of the good life. To do so would be a fallacy of method.
Systemic thinking is often
either-or thinking. Those who suffer from a (limited) belief system hold that values, and systems of values, must be
either objective or subjective ...
but cannot be both.
In contrast, a breakthrough in the 20th century by a polymath philosopher - and modified and updated by philosopher Peter Demerest in the 21st century - explains that those who have a preference for highly systemic thinking perhaps miss the point.
They insist that "value" is either subjective or objective; to them, it can’t be both. The wonder of Dr. Hartman’s work is that he proposed that IT IS BOTH –
objective in nature and subjective in the human mind.
In Demerest's humble view, {and the following is an excerpt of a quotation from a letter to yours truly}:
"...The fundamental goal of life(s) is to bring our subjective spirit into greater alignment with the objective reality. Paradoxically, in doing so, we experience MORE of the intrinsic values, not less. Rather than becoming heartless, automatons, or “Vulcans” we become heart-FULL humans.
That the concept VALUE is both objective and subjective at the same time may be very difficult to grasp for a person who is dominated by systemic thinking. This especially may be the case when the concept of Value (moral) is confused with value (goodness). Both "morals" and "Value" after all, are - in a theory - systemic concepts.
In (the 2012 book just published)
Answering The Central Question, we
define (on page 90) “moral goodness” as when "
something/someone “supports the creation of greater net value in reality.”.
In other words, since moral goodness can be ascribed to a conscious being,
the action of a person is morally good when it has both the intention/purpose of creating the greatest net value AND the properties needed to actually do so. [Keep in mind our definition of “
net” – namely: all things considered (pros and cons) for ALL people concerned (ourselves and others), both short and long term.]
More and more, I become confident that value dynamics is not linear, but rather, quite circular (S -> E -> I -> S -> E -> I -> S).
While (it is true that) I>E>S, “S” that adds value to “E”, adds value to “I.”
[More than] ...circular... ... Perhaps even fractal, rather than circular. Meaning within every S there exists and I, E, and S and within every I, there exists and S,E, and I.
When maximizing “I” (Quality of Life - QoL) is seen as the ultimate goal (Aristotle), then "I" is also the greatest good/value).
Max QoL is created when we have harmony on ALL three dimensions.
Then there is no mutually exclusivity (I at the expense of S; or S at the expense of I).
{Be aware that} the highest goal is not the greatest value/good for the MOST people, but the greatest value for ALL people.
Yet, the pathway to such a life/world, will cause those in disharmony (all of us) to suffer as a result of our/their inner-disharmony. But through that suffering, when embraced as an opportunity, rather than threat, and with a desire to realize our greatest potential, we/they will grow.
And in that growing we also learn not to suffer. "
Thank you, Peter, for letting us witness the philosophical mind in action. You are one wide-awake individual
