Philosophy Now Forum

prof wrote:

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

Oh, thanks ever so much for telling me what criteria I should use to formulate my own ethical theories...

.

Don't (most of) the criteria listed there apply - as measure - to judge any and every ethical theory?

E.g., does your specific theory avoid committing The Naturalistic Fallacy which was devised by G. E. Moore?

Does your ethical theory contain any symbolic logic, variables, factors that can be expressed mathematically? ...For this, a fortiori, means that the theory will cover a wider range of data than any system which lacks this.

Does it have any data useful to help an individual Know Himself? For this latter is what Socrates recommended for all persons.
If it has, does this data lend itself to statistical analysis

The Hartman/Katz theory has all this........