Philosophy Now Forum

It is not enough to just think about cleaning one’s teeth after a meal if one wants to protect one’s teeth and gums, one needs to be aware that he ought to brush his teeth. It is not enough to merely think about it; he actually needs to DO it. And to form a habit of doing it.

Those of us who are educated – truly educated – are aware of our enlightened self-interest. We know we need others to cooperate with us if we are going to reach our goals and eventually thus fulfill our purpose(s).

We know that it is in our self-interest to have happy, cooperative, peaceful, loving people around us, working for the common good. We know that we stand together or we fall together. We flourish when we have harmonious relationships, truly caring persons joyfully cooperating to build a better world for all.

Hence we are aware and constantly mindful that it is not enough to think about implementing The Central Question of life but to actually DO it.

What is that Central Question? {See the book by Demerest & Schoof here: http://www.amazon.com/s/176-8928387-132 ... s&sourceid }

The central question of life is simply this: What can I do or say this moment to create the greatest net value?

What does “net value” mean here? It means: all things considered, and for all concerned.. It’s another way of suggesting “the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” In every situation in which one finds oneself one may ask himself that question …and then proceed to implement it in practice.

On what basis can this question be answered? How do we do it?

We are, or make it our business to become, educated in values, and in the logic of values…. That’s how. We know – thanks to the genius of Robert S. Hartman - about the value spectrum, about S, E, and I. [That is, about Systemic, Extrinsic and Intrinsic Value.] We know that there is a hierarchy on that spectrum with I > E > S. We know the implications of this. We are aware – if we have studied axiogenics, as popularized by Demerest & Schoof; or Ethics, as explained by M. C. Katz - that every individual is to be regarded Intrinisically. [That is to say, that each individual is to be seen as having uncountably-infinite value. That is the ‘axiogenic’ perspective, the Ethical perspective.]

We will give the individual (in all his/her unique individuality) top priority, and NOT let things nor systems get the upper hand over the person.. We will not commit the ethical fallacies mentioned at the end of page 18 of the UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS.
http://tinyurl.com/crz6xea

We will not treat a person as if that person were a thing or a number. We won’t commit rankism. Neither will we be rude or debasing or exploitative. We won’t succumb to raw greed. We will want to be of service, to be authentic, to be responsible.

We will work for, and advocate for, social-mobility and for increasing opportunity for people to better themselves, improve their lot. One way they do this is by being innovative and creative – by thinking of ways to make the lives of others more comfortable, or ways that folks can obtain goods and services at lower costs, or lead simpler or easier lives, or less anxiety-provoking existences. Educated people push for a quality life for all.

They may, for example, form mutual-aid societies and mutual-support groups. They coalesce in local organizations to get a worthwhile project done …such as to reduce pollution, or waste, or to encourage business to be more socially responsible. Think of, as examples, Mothers Against Drunk Driving;; or Gifford & Kelly’s new nonprofit Americans for Responsible Solutions – working to attain reasonable gun policy. This is Applied Ethics at its best.

Another point one learns from Hartman’s value logic is this: a thing needs all of the properties necessary to fulfill its concept, And if it did not fulfill its its concept (or its purpose, if it has one), then it did not have what it needed.. This applies as well to conscious individual human beings. One then has to fulfill the steps that result in reaching the goal, the purposeful-life, the life that makes sense, that is meaningful. One has to do things in the right order, and do everything in as efficient a manner as possible – and do it all with a view toward effectiveness: toward creating the maximum value, and answering the Central Question.

Prof --
'The central question of life is simply this: What can I do or say this moment to create the greatest net value?'

I agree wholeheartedly with the aims of this Applied Ethical system. However the reason I extracted this one sentence was because there are powers in the world today who would interpret this as a legitimate reason to remove from a cage of 100 rats 49 of their number.
Social Darwinists could also exploit the meaning of such a broad statement and define 'greatest net value' qualitatively, which could hypothetically mean the removal of 99 rats from the cage.
But generally I approve of the overall egalitarian sentiments of the Applied Ethical system.

That book, to which a link was given in the fifth paragraph of the original post, by Demerest & Schoof, expands upon the Central Question, giving case studies of how it can be used in all sorts of life situations.

They wrote the book to show why and how the Question is central to life, and how it will help to solve lots of currently pressing problems. At the end of the book they describe a politician who would live by the Principle, and suggest we vote only for those who meet those criteria.

Sorry, but these ethical desires are archaic and belong in the 20th century. I thought that Nietzsche and Foucault had buried doctrines of rational positivism in amongst the graves of romanticism and humanism, where they belong, with their anthropocentric christian idealism, and their sickening nauseating predictability, as if the laws of chaos never existed.

The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleoanthropological hoax ever to have been perpetrated. It is prominent for the attention paid to the issue and for the length of time that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.
It didn't have a real brain. The only brain it did have was so loaded with ideologies that it exploded.


Greetings, Pilt

I thought you recently said: "I agree wholeheartedly with the aims of this Applied Ethical system. ... I approve of the overall egalitarian sentiments of the Applied Ethical system."

I am confused why the sudden turn of mood, a polar swing from one mood to another.

As I see it, the way the Central Question of Life operates, in practice, is: Instead of showing how I'm right and you're wrong; or how cleverly I can put another person down with some belittling quip - instead seek to emphasize harmony and solidarity; or give a sincere compliment.

It serves to remind one to exercise at least a modicum of deference to one's loved ones, friends, and neighbors, co-workers - or to anyone in in your presence. It serves to remind us to be respectful, and to foster harmony ..if not outright love. {At the very least one can be courteous and say "Please" and "Thank you.."}

The Central Question points one toward the definition of Ethics rooted in value logic: Ethics arises when one values individuals as Intrinsic Values (as of uncountably-high value) - as definitely complex - and thus not focusing on a single trait or label true of them (such as Moslem)(or laborer, or parent, or flat-nosed, or dark-complexioned, etc.)

When we really care about people then we will devise better norms, laws, and systems -- which will make for greater efficiency, aimed toward effectiveness. No product or service is effective unless it contributes to a greater quality of life, or aims toward the well-being of all. It requires people of good character to implement this ...so self-improvement is indicated as a major project of Ethics. Do I take the Principles seriously? Am I committed to being a decent person? Am I devoted to the spreading of ethics in this world? Do I aim for excellence in my work?

As Sai Baba of Shirdi once said: "Before you speak, ask yourself:
Is it kind, is it true, is it necessary, does it improve the silence?"

Perhaps we won't always manage to do this - I didn't at the start of this post, as I gave an emotional reaction to the silliness of the previous post, getting silly myself.

As someone commented in another forum, this Central Question approach "is attractive if I think of it in small spheres of influence. What could I do for the few people I know to increase their happiness? That is reasonable, but even then there are times when I could fail to make the "right" decision. It works better in smaller settings because of the knowledge I have of those closest to me, or the situation that I am currently in."

Comments? Constructive ideas to enhance Ethics?

True, we all have our lifespan to look back on and to evaluate our contribution to the net benefit. But as an example Prof, these yuppy greenies who leave a carbon footprint 3,000 times greater than the average person from an under-developed region of this planet. There is yet to be devised an ethic for hypocrisy, and until then, I shall remain a sceptic, and in a way, we are all mutated genetic and social constructions hiding from our animalism or masquerading as superior lifeforms. But to strive for perfection is noble, and the journey is worth it despite the wrecks along the way.

PS. What I mean about an ethic for hypocrisy was worded badly, I meant an ethic which enforced honesty, which is absurd and has overtones of totalitarian Brave New World scenarios. On the otherhand I believe that the small societies of hunter-gatherers were at the ideal density of sustainable existence and had the potential to idealize moral and ethical laws without being authoritarian to the degree of fomenting revolution. To me, revolution is just another scrap fight in an overcrowded cage, resulting in reformation or recuperation of the same basic ethical formulae dressed in a different cloak. You know the joke, a cynic is what an idealist calls a realist. I only desire honesty, and it's a very rare quality these days.

PPS. Just to add spice to our discussion, AS Dawkins mentioned in 'The Selfish Gene', I would swim past a drowning stranger to save a drowning relative. A full circle, empirical analysis and behavioral psychology has hit the nail on the head. The hunter/gatherers were mostly in family clans in which the need for an ethos was negated by the intuitive and inherent bond of genetic relationships. Christianity did attempt to override our selfish tendencies, noble yet flawed, it produced a society of weaklings wrought with guilt but also overly righteous and cruel enough to punish those that did not kneel to their morality. No, I prefer the spontaneous violence of the jungle to the orderly meakness of a cloned perfection. But I admire your goodheartedness.

Thank you for your admiration.

However, you speak of "the orderly meakness of a cloned perfection." [sic] so I am not sure what you are admiring - for that certainly is NOT what I'm advocating, nor arguing for. By the analysis of the metalanguage employed for Ethics, the concept "perfection" is a very low value; it only occurs when, say, the holes in two punch-cards line up, or in paper dolls that are exact duplicates. [See End Note 4 of the Unified Theory of Ethics, where three kinds of Full Value are defined by use of the Dimensions of Value.] http://tinyurl.com/27pzhbf

I know of no perfect solutions or perfect societies - even after having studied all the major literary utopias. They all have flaws. A major flaw is that they don't tell you 'how to get from here to there.' Ethics, when made into a science, does show how it will make progress ..through related technologies.

And you speak of cruelty, and the inflicting of abuse on individuals - which is the opposite of what Ethics concludes, by definition and by deduction of its principles. Lately I've been arguing for the wisdom of practicing the Central Question of Life, which recommends creating value at every opportunity.

And who is pushing for "cloning"? And where in anything I wrote did I claim that everything would be orderly?

I did say someplace that it is best to do things in the right order, for if they are done in a wrong order, there is usually a cost that exceeds the benefit, namely time wasted, or some other waste. Life is short enough as it is ....I say this aware that (since I soon will be 83) I only have about 30 more years at best. I doubt I can in that space of time get everything done that is on my 'desire list.' {Some of it is pretty-darn ambitious!}

The Hartman/Katz system of Ethics does indicate that our priorities are upside down here in the U.S.A as reflected in our government budget, in which 57% is spent on "Defense" and related items, but only 4% is spent on Education. Imagine if 10% (let alone 25%) were spent on education???!!!!!! What savings would occur in other sectors We would spend less on prisons, on wars, on criminalizing of dope, of taking dope, on food stamps, on other social programs, etc., etc. ...provided it was true education, namely education about values, specifically, the formula I > E > S and the implications which logically follow.

You say, Piltdown, that you "prefer the violence of the jungle" but I assume you don't go into the jungle much, and if you do, I believe you prefer not to be the target of that violence. Am I wrong?

Comments? Questions? Discussion?

I'd like to share with you a quotation from H. Schoof, one of the co-authors of the book ANSWERING THE CENTRAL QUESTION. Here is the quote:

" Take a few moments right now to think about what you value and why you value it? The answer is that you value it because you believe it adds quality to your life in some way.

Could “quality of life” be the ultimate good: the good “at which all things aim?” [in the words of Aristotle] Could “quality of life” be the thing that has the greatest human value? If so, then could the true value of everything be a measure of its ability to add quality to life? Could it be that the more quality something can add to life, the greater its value?

What, then, is “quality?” Quality is not just tangible. Quality of life isn’t just about “stuff” and it is not just a concept. It’s really something we experience as human beings. Even people with very little “stuff” can have tremendous quality of life.

What has the greatest impact on quality of life: a systemic concept (like rules and ideas), an extrinsic thing (like possessions), or the intrinsic experience of something (like wonder and joy)? If we value our opinion (systemic) of right and wrong over actually getting something done (extrinsic), will we ever get much done (think about American politics of late)? If we value the “things" we love more than the experience of love itself, will we ever truly have quality of life – a life worth loving?

When you add quality to the life of another (in any form), doesn’t it add quality to your life? But, when you try to add quality to your life, at the expense of others (such as making yourself feel better by making them feel bad or wrong), does it really add quality to your life in the long-run? Isn’t that just another form of thievery?

Quality of life is created by the goodness of the decisions we make about how to focus and use our heart and mind, along with our time, resources, intuition, and wisdom in every moment. The better our choices, actions, and reactions, the greater goodness we experience and the greater quality of life we have. In other words, it feels good to be good: something neuro-scientists have actually been able to prove."

Comments?
For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out these links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment.
LIVING THE GOOD LIFE h[url]ttp://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/Living_The_Good_Lifef.pdf[/url]

For the booklet A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS: http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ETHICS.pdf
Written in dialogue form, it depicts moral philosophers sitting around a table with the task of constructing a theory of ethics which is better than anything seen before. This booklet is the first of four parts. The other three parts are the following:
For the booklet ETHICAL ADVENTURES http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... NTURES.pdf

For the essay, ETHICAL EXPLORATIONS - http://tinyurl.com/22ohd2x

For the paper ASPECTS OF ETHICS http://tinyurl.com/36u6gpo

To avoid technicalities once you google this textbook you may skip to page 20. Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course.
Enjoy !!

Hi Prof,

When I hear you speak of the 'quality of life' and what we value in order to promote better quality of life, I think of my mother and how she was concerned for her children to have the "best" life. She was so concerned for our well being she believed that she had complete control of the situation regarding our lives. She did not care about the quality of her life at all....to the point that when she thought that my sister was going to be a drug addict...she sat her down and in all seriousness said that she would rather kill her than allow that to happen. She said she would rather be in prison for the rest of her life than to see her daughter lose her life to drugs. I guess the threat worked...as my sister is neither dead nor a drug addict....but at what cost to the quality of life in another way...as my sis nor I have a mother we can trust.

Who is to say any of us knows what will truly bring quality to our lives? Personally...I just think we like to believe we have an inkling of control in our lives where we actually have none.

Artisticsolution:

Hi Prof,

When I hear you speak of the 'quality of life' and what we value in order to promote better quality of life, I think of my mother and how she was concerned for her children to have the "best" life. She was so concerned for our well being she believed that she had complete control of the situation regarding our lives. She did not care about the quality of her life at all....to the point that when she thought that my sister was going to be a drug addict...she sat her down and in all seriousness said that she would rather kill her than allow that to happen. She said she would rather be in prison for the rest of her life than to see her daughter lose her life to drugs. I guess the threat worked...as my sister is neither dead nor a drug addict....but at what cost to the quality of life in another way...as my sis nor I have a mother we can trust.

Who is to say any of us knows what will truly bring quality to our lives? Personally...I just think we like to believe we have an inkling of control in our lives where we actually have none.

Was there no father figure in your upbringing? It seems to me that your mother felt the complete opposite of the control you thought she had. That was the action of a desperate woman, a last resort. A highly emotional reaction from a woman who probably would have fared better in life with the support of a strong adult partner. Some people are better alone, your mother was or is not one of those people. She did what she could at the time, (to the exclusion of her own wants and needs, as you have said) by herself and to condem her for that by withdrawing your trust, fails to recognise her frailty emotionally, that being said, it does not mean she did not "rise" to the challenge, albeit in a desperate manner. She did it her way and on her own. To be alone as a woman or a man, in a family environment and be all things to his or her children is a very difficult task indeed. Of course, I am assuming a great deal, that there was no male figure to take some of the responsibility at the time.

artisticsolution wrote:Hi Prof, ... I guess the threat worked...as my sister is neither dead nor a drug addict....but at what cost to the quality of life in another way...as my sis nor I have a mother we can trust.

Just love her. The trust will take care of itself. It will come.

Do you know what love is? Love is service; it is giving of yourself; it is readiness to do favors for the one you are loving; it is intense caring. So have that attitude toward your mother, and maybe she will die happy, maybe she will say to herself that all that struggle to raise you and your sister was worthwhile, it was all worth it. Until you become a parent yourself, or get more mature, you have no idea what kids put a parent through !!!! You (may have) aged her (prematurely.) You owe her. Phone her frequently to ask how she is. Let her know how dear she is to you. Love her. The rest will follow.

Also, don't worry about who is in control; you'll never leave this world alive. It's a paradox about security: when you give up wanting it, you have it !

There are, of course, certain things you can do to raise the probabilities of success. You can follow the steps that life-coaches teach that tend to result in your being a successful person. I, for one, although I have reached a level of comfort that I don't have to look at prices, at least for the necessities, such as food, I never give any consideration to the issue of "control."

We rise or fall together. You really won't have a quality life until nearly everyone else has it too. But you may come close: If you value people Intrinsically, and work to achieve a cause 'bigger than the both of us', a noble cause, you will attain a meaningful life. That is what we all really want, when you come down to it: we want to make a difference. We want our life to have meant something ....not to just exist and drift. ...Not to live and die in vain.

By "a noble cause" I mean, for example, a cause such as children's rights, or prisoners' rights, or women's liberation, civil liberties, reducing extreme poverty, etc.

Hi Reasonvemotion and Prof,

I agree with what you both have to say about my mother. I am sorry if my post sounded "down." I wasn't intended to sound that way...it was just a statement of fact. My mother is mentally ill and has been all of her life. I don't blame her for the way she is as she has a sickness. That doesn't mean that I condone threats to kill people. I have no problem loving my mother...as she did a great job raising us considering her illness. But logically speaking...one can never trust a mentally ill person fully as one never knows when they will snap. This has just been a way of life for my sis and i....and we love our mother....but love is not blind in this instance.

Yes, reason...she had a husband during this time. He was a great guy...he loved her and us...he was like a dad to us....they were married for about 20 years when all of a sudden my mom started to believe he was trying to have her murdered (he wasn't). She left him and a few years later pulled the plug on his life support...ironic...no? (not that I blame her for pulling the plug as he would never lead a normal life again...just that I find it ironic.) Anyway.....I could write a book....it's a very long story and the way I am telling it I am sure your imagination will fill in the gaps incorrectly as you can't know what you don't know....but trust me...I have a long list of witnesses including healthcare professionals who can attest to her mental illness. It is normal to me and my sis as we never knew anything different...this is the mom we were given and she is not all bad...in fact...believe it or not...when shes good...she's great. I am just saying is all.

Yes Prof,

I know what you are saying as I am a parent of grown children. I agree with you. What I was trying to say is whether or not one has values that are good or bad that make you want to change the quality of your life, it is still control. I wonder what it is about us that wants to control every aspect of our lives...be it good or bad. It seems we must always have a project. Sometimes even when we mean well we can screw things up for ourselves. For example, if we are too kind, some people can take that as a sign they can prey on our good nature. I have seen some very cruel behavior by being too nice to people. So now I always start off nice...but then I have been know to display my assertive side if someone gets too mean. That usually startles them enough to back off...but I wonder to myself how they would act with a person who does not know how to assert themselves...would they be happy to continue to abuse? I don't know...but my common sense tells me they would.

What are your thoughts?

prof wrote:... We flourish when we have harmonious relationships, truly caring persons joyfully cooperating to build a better world for all.

Hence we are aware and constantly mindful that it is not enough to think about implementing The Central Question of life but to actually DO it.

What is that Central Question? {See the book by Demerest & Schoof here: http://www.amazon.com/s/176-8928387-132 ... s&sourceid }

The central question of life is simply this: What can I do or say this moment to create the greatest net value?

...On what basis can this question be answered? How do we do it?

...[We] do everything in as efficient a manner as possible – and do it all with a view toward effectiveness: toward creating the maximum value, and answering the Central Question.

This is a little review of the original post in the thread, and an update, a revision, which is the following:

There is another way to interpret the Central Question of Life that has moral overtones:

The Central Question reminds us to reflect: How can I create value in each situation in which I find myself?

It could be interpreted as economic value

How can I be innovative? How can I invent something? How can I re-design some existing product or service so as to make it even more useful? How could my new design make the lives of others more comfortable? How can I start a new business? How can I be a "money magnet" in order to have the wherewithal to fund a good and noble cause, as a donor? How can I share the prosperity I come into as a result of figuring out how to make money?
How can I, in business, be a "conscious capitalist" (be ethical) by uplifting my staff, helping my customers gain more, improving my environment, supporting the culture in my community, and seeing to it that all stakeholders in my business are, somehow, winners?

This too is creating value.

so the Central Question of Life is about raising consciousness, about making a person more mindful.