What does universal ethics look like?

[prof]

Let's clear up some confusion.

Mores =df.= the practices of a human culture.

Ethics is not to be confused with mores. They are two different and distinct concepts. The discipline of Ethics prescribes principles that serve to facilitate the living of the good life the way that Medicine prescribes drugs to take to relieve pain. [No one has to take the pills, and no one is forced to live a quality life. They can at least be presented with a choice, and then make up their mind if they want a hip replacement or a medication; or - in the case of Ethics - if they want to be more miserable than is necessary.]

I don't know what you mean by "universal." I'd like to understand how you define the word. What I mean by it is: around most of the planet, Earth.

...There is noting wrong with child circumcision, though my system takes no stand on it. I personally believe men are better off having had it, for reasons of hygiene: less places for germs and dirt to gather. [Emphasis later added]

...You position on genital mutilation is a contradiction of your own rights policy.
I suggest you find out more about it, especially FGM as practiced in the Muslim community.
http://orchidproject.org/?gclid=CM6vqvX ... tAod2TMAyA
By your words you are giving tacit consent for parents to remove the clitoris and sew up the vagina.

Is it possible that someone here is putting words into my mouth Would people who want to live ethically do that?

I was referring to males as would be clear to most careful readers and since that is what is denoted by the word "circumcision":
"World English Dictionary
circumcision (ˌsɜːkəmˈsɪʒən)
— n
1. a. surgical removal of the foreskin of males."

If I meant mutilation of females, I would have said so ! Could anyone who had done the slightest reading of my positions in the proposed World Constitution on page 3 of this thread, {printed in green color, for emphasis,} come to such a conclusion? Wouldn't a reader of English have plainly seen that causing unnecessary pain to anyone is ruled out by the Articles of the document.

I'll repeat the relevant passages here:

Article One. The people of the planet, Earth, shall exhibit compassion and respect for all ....

Article Three.
...We are to find ways to empower people from the bottom up ..., with a view to providing a quality life for all.

Of course, in my previous posts as readers recall, I endorse and promote the Moral Principles: Minimize suffering; and Maximize well-being for one and all. And I stress giving priority to the former, if one has a choice. I questioned whether we had enough billionaires, or instead, whether we had better give priority to reducing the amount of misery and destitution on this planet. We need to raise up the lowest-class to a level of minimum economic standards that the Lower Middle-class enjoys today. The sooner, the better. All my proposals are planetary-wide.

My personal view on circumcision is based on my own life experience. I was circumcised and I am glad that I was.

Let us be cognizant of Perception Gaps, and do what we can to close them up. Defining terms we use would be one way. Asking questions is another.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Let's clear up some confusion.

Mores =df.= the practices of a human culture.

Ethics is not to be confused with mores. They are two different and distinct concepts. The discipline of Ethics prescribes principles that serve to facilitate the living of the good life the way that Medicine prescribes drugs to take to relieve pain. [No one has to take the pills, and no one is forced to live a quality life. They can at least be presented with a choice, and then make up their mind if they want a hip replacement or a medication; or - in the case of Ethics - if they want to be more miserable than is necessary.]

I don't know what you mean by "universal." I'd like to understand how you define the word. What I mean by it is: around most of the planet, Earth.

...There is noting wrong with child circumcision, though my system takes no stand on it. I personally believe men are better off having had it, for reasons of hygiene: less places for germs and dirt to gather. [Emphasis later added]

...You position on genital mutilation is a contradiction of your own rights policy.
I suggest you find out more about it, especially FGM as practiced in the Muslim community.
http://orchidproject.org/?gclid=CM6vqvX ... tAod2TMAyA
By your words you are giving tacit consent for parents to remove the clitoris and sew up the vagina.

Is it possible that someone here is putting words into my mouth Would people who want to live ethically do that?

I was referring to males as would be clear to most careful readers and since that is what is denoted by the word "circumcision":
"World English Dictionary
circumcision (ˌsɜːkəmˈsɪʒən)
— n
1. a. surgical removal of the foreskin of males."

If I meant mutilation of females, I would have said so ! Could anyone who had done the slightest reading of my positions in the proposed World Constitution on page 3 of this thread, {printed in green color, for emphasis,} come to such a conclusion? Wouldn't a reader of English have plainly seen that causing unnecessary pain to anyone is ruled out by the Articles of the document.

I'll repeat the relevant passages here:

Article One. The people of the planet, Earth, shall exhibit compassion and respect for all ....

Article Three.
...We are to find ways to empower people from the bottom up ..., with a view to providing a quality life for all.

Of course, in my previous posts as readers recall, I endorse and promote the Moral Principles: Minimize suffering; and Maximize well-being for one and all. And I stress giving priority to the former, if one has a choice. I questioned whether we had enough billionaires, or instead, whether we had better give priority to reducing the amount of misery and destitution on this planet. We need to raise up the lowest-class to a level of minimum economic standards that the Lower Middle-class enjoys today. The sooner, the better. All my proposals are planetary-wide.

My personal view on circumcision is based on my own life experience. I was circumcised and I am glad that I was.

Let us be cognizant of Perception Gaps, and do what we can to close them up. Defining terms we use would be one way. Asking questions is another.

You are advocating the mutilation of an infant at a time in his life he is unable to make a choice.
I'm circumcised and having looked into it in some detail I wish I was not.
There is no good medical reason to do so, and there are a great many dangers in the operation, as well as adverse side effects in terms of sexual sensitivity for the rest of your life.
~So my rights were breached as a child, but the same practice done to you - you see as a benefit.
The point about bringing this up, is that when you give a parent the rights over their own child (as if chattel) you are opening up that child to face a range of abuses, including FGM, which on moral grounds prevents a woman from enjoying sex so as to restrict sex to the procreative purpose avoiding the desire which leads to fornication and adultery.
This simply indicates that in accordance with the cultural logic of one society or group of people one practice makes sense which to another might be seen as abusive.
Something as simple as male circumcision is far from straightforward.
BTW, are you Jewish or of Jewish heritage?

FYI...

cir·cum·cise (sûrkm-sz)
tr.v. cir·cum·cised, cir·cum·cis·ing, cir·cum·cis·es
1. To remove the prepuce of (a male).
2. To remove all or part of the clitoris, prepuce, or labia of (a female).

I'm sure you came across the same entry too.
Your flim flam is not respected.

[prof]

Let's clear up some confusion.

Mores =df.= the practices of a human culture.

Ethics is not to be confused with mores. They are two different and distinct concepts. The discipline of Ethics prescribes principles that serve to facilitate the living of the good life the way that Medicine prescribes drugs to take to relieve pain. [No one has to take the pills, and no one is forced to live a quality life. They can at least be presented with a choice, and then make up their mind if they want a hip replacement or a medication; or - in the case of Ethics - if they want to be more miserable than is necessary.]

Then you wrote to me, in response: "...You [sic] position is a contradiction of your own rights policy." This is the confusion of which I spoke at the outset of this post. I took no position on this cutting skin topic, and neither does my ethical theory have a position on it.

I did not have in mind - and do not want - the mutilation of females ! Could anyone who had done the slightest reading of my positions in the proposed World Constitution on page 3 of this thread, {printed in green color, for emphasis,} come to such a conclusion? Wouldn't a reader of English have plainly seen that causing unnecessary pain to anyone is ruled out by the Articles of the document.

I'll repeat the relevant passages here:

Article One. The people of the planet, Earth, shall exhibit compassion and respect for all ....

Article Three.
...We are to find ways to empower people from the bottom up ..., with a view to providing a quality life for all.

Of course, in my previous posts as readers recall, I endorse and promote the Moral Principles: Minimize suffering; and Maximize well-being for one and all. And I stress giving priority to the former, if one has a choice. I questioned whether we had enough billionaires, or instead, whether we had better give priority to reducing the amount of misery and destitution on this planet. We need to raise up the lowest-class to a level of minimum economic standards that the Lower Middle-class enjoys today. The sooner, the better. All my proposals are planetary-wide.

Let us be cognizant of Perception Gaps, and do what we can to close them up. Defining terms we use would be one way. Asking questions is another.

You are advocating the mutilation of an infant

I'm circumcised and having looked into it in some detail I wish I was not.
There is no good medical reason to do so, and there are a great many dangers in the operation, as well as adverse side effects in terms of sexual sensitivity for the rest of your life.

BTW, are you Jewish or of Jewish heritage?

Greetings, HC

Now I understand better about what I - perhaps mistakenly - perceived as a strong over-reaction verging on bitter opposition; adverse side effects could get a person down. Thank you for sharing with us that background. We are on your side. Let us know if there is any way we can be of assistance.

I am of Jewish heritage, am not a Hebrew, never got a bar mitzvah -----but it isn't about me. Yes, it is true I have an ethical theory to offer. The theory is useful to encourage species-wide flourishing. Considering all the befits it has for those who practice it, folks may want to use the Unified Theory of Ethics until a better theory comes along.


By any chance, is your last name Wyman?