Philosophy Now Forum

Let us begin this brief glimpse of the history of ethics with Augustine (354-430), who contributed the concept that it is up to man to perfect his own creation, to bring good from evil. Love is what helps us to do this.

Later, Montaigne, in 1588, recommends that the best course for an individual is to listen to his inner voice. If we follow our conscience, he advised, it will guide us.

And Hugo Grotius, in 1624, though he agreed with that counsel, wanted to work out ways that people could get along with each other sociably. He spelled out some empirically-based directions for avoiding quarrels that mediators still use today.

In 1625 Edward of Cherbourg developed some of Grotius’ ideas and further claimed that humans have an intuitive grasp of moral truths which give us a knowledge of natural law. Today that view, as modified, is known as Intuitionism. About the same time, both Pufendorf and Hobbes were advancing the concept of ‘a social contract.’
Ralph Cudworth and Samuel Clarke, writing in the early 1700s taught that there are universal moral principles that our intuitions can reflect and that moral knowledge can make us self-governing. Joseph Butler, and Thomas Reid, in 1788, endorsed the Intuitionist point-of-view also.

Both Schopenhauer (1788-1860) and Albert Schweitzer (1875-1966) emphasized the will-to-live. The former stressed the role of ‘sympathy’ and conscience. [Today we speak of empathy and ground it in brain-neurology.] This philosopher recommended that we not give in to every desire we may have, and instead give our attention to art and to science.

Schweitzer also had a theory of man’s will. In his life he claimed he managed to see the natural pattern of the whole of phenomena - today we speak of the web-of-life - which led him to conclude that this directs us to accept responsibility for others – even for animals with a spinal chord who are capable of suffering pain. He taught: Do not live for yourself alone and your life will then be richer, more beautiful, and happier. Have reverence for life. This is critical.

Bertrand Russell ((1872-1970) in his ethical writings, stressed personal development: happiness for human beings, he concluded, is only possible to those who develop their god-like potentialities to the utmost. He counseled: Make your desires compatible with those of others, and thus reduce conflict.

The Unified Theory of Ethics indicates that we each work out our own ideas, as we commit ourselves to being decent human beings, who aim to be as moral as we can be; yet it may be helpful to know the history of ideas and what we can learn from earlier thinkers who may have had a glimpse of wisdom, a grain of insight, insights that eventually would be confirmed by scientific findings and careful research.

Prof you didn't actually get beyond the "Let us begin..." here, because you never ended it in any proposal or theme to discuss. You simply stated history without a point, without a claim or a challenge. Do you have any claim or challenge for which we can make a discussion on?

Someone asked me why I omitted mention of Aristotle and of Spinoza?

I responded (with tongue-in-cheek):

I wanted to leave something for you to do.

Today, most academics rely chiefly on Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethica as the guide for the modern world. We need a 21st-century Ethics, wouldn't you agree? That's how I feel anyway.

The Stoics, such as Epictetus, were important too. They are very worth studying.

Spinoza, as wise as he was - and that's very, very wise, was a Rationalist,(as well as was Descartes) who believed that an ethical system should be coherent and logical; and its terms ought to be defined. This is most commendable. However, the Rationalist believed that just working out a theory of ethics that held together - he thought it was as strict as Geometry - would necessarily say something about the concrete world. Hartman did not follow them in their belief that they are demonstrating the truth of their principles. Instead he knew it would be better to follow the example of Galileo, who founded the science of Mechanics, the earliest branch of Physics, by interpreting the aristotelean idea of "change" or "movement" as something new; namely "motion" (rate of change) defined by a formula, containing variables: [Distance covered, when divided by units of time has an exact relationship - namely equivalence - to 'rate of speed']. This connects with the empirical world of sense perception ....and that's what we need in Ethics.

Spinoza's Ethics is very systematic, full of precision and subtlety. Both Spinoza and Hartman saw clearly [as Hartman was later to demonstrate in his defining exactly - for the first time in history - a "good" x - and showed how it differed from a "yellow" x - although they both may describe the specific x in question] that value judgments are modes of thinking and depend upon who the judge happens to be. Spinoza wrote: "One and the same thing can be at the same time good, bad, and indifferent. For instance, music is good for him that is melancholy, bad for him that mourns ; for him who is deaf, it is neither good nor bad." {When he wrote "....bad for him that mourns" the New Orleans up-tempo gospel-hymn traditions did not occur to him then.}

Three hundred years later, after Spinoza wrote that, by substituting different constants (arguments, specifications) for the variable C, in the matrix, "x is good C", Hartman showed that x can be good as "wedding music" yet bad as "funeral music" when x is a really-lively tune. {Alert: this is only an illustration, and not something to 'get hung up' over.]


I hope this has been helpful.

Yours for Ethics,

prof

The Voice of Time wrote:Prof ...you never ended it in any proposal or theme to discuss. You simply stated history without a point, without a claim or a challenge. Do you have any claim or challenge for which we can make a discussion on?

My point, and theme to discuss, was given in the last paragraph of the o.p., especially in its last sentence.

I hold that if Ethics uses scientific methods it can be a science.

On page 79 of Appendix 1 in the COLLEGE COURSE manual, it explains how Ethics is a science, in that with the Hartman Value Profile test, an individual's score comes out in decimals, and is thus subject to comparison with other individuals - perhaps in a cohort group, or in some other category. Each individual, though, is unique. Usually the test is used to help the individual Know him/herself.... as the Oracle at Delphi advised Socrates. This is especially true of the clinical version of the profile used by psychiatrists and psychotherapists. Sometimes it is used for matching people up, in couples; or in compatible teams. This makes it very useful. A description of the test is given earlier in that Appendix. Here is a link to it: http://tinyurl.com/24cs9y7 See pp. 74-79.

Ethics is Applied value science. The latter tells us what "good" means. Then we can know who the "good person" is. One of the basic Dimensions of Value [namely, Intrinsic Value] is employed to derive the definition of the field of Ethics, and delineate how it differs from other perspectives, other ways of viewing the individual. This is explained in more detail in many of the threads I have initiated here, such as "The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts? or"The Natural-Logical Law of Conduct" as well as in most of the essays linked to in earlier threads here, such as this one to the Unified Theory of Ethics http://tinyurl.com/crz6xea - See, for example, pp. 48-49 for a brief discussion of the nature of human nature. Human beings, after all, are a part of nature ...that part which generates values. Ethics, as a discipline, though, avoids committing the Naturalistic Fallacy ...as I explained in an earlier thread here.

Better tools of measurement will come along when someone who knows the relevant branches of math at the same time takes an interest in Ethics, and matches up those two fields of knowledge: he or she, say, for example, is well-acquainted with what engineers have whimsically dubbed "Fuzzy Logic." This is used for thermostatic automation, for balancing, and many customizing functions; its results come out in decimal fractions, so it offers very-refined degrees of measurement. It is likely ideal for Ethics, and there already exist thick volumes of texts describing the rather-involved mathematics. If some of its formulas are used to rigorously define standard terms of Ethics, such as "peace", "compassion", "free-will", "happiness", etc., then Ethics will really make rapid progress.

As it is, new technologies are coming out every few years which have a bearing on ethics. Examples of such are the printing press, the jury system, the telephone, the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, the world-brain )the internet), the X-Prize, distributed programming designed to solve a serious human problem, green energies, the i-phone, Bucky Fuller's world-gaming, the Peace Alliance, axiogenics The Central Question, etc., etc. They occur more rapidly now, and The Intelligent Optimist Magazine,The Futurist magazine, as well as Yes ! Magazine, report on recent developments.

prof wrote:Ethics is Applied value science

No it's not. Ethics is a description of what to do, it doesn't tell "how" to achieve that which is to be done, it's like stating the goal without stating the method. The method, in turn, is described by applied value science, whereas theoretical value science deals with the constituents of value methodology, the applied value science, as it can also be called.

prof wrote:Better tools of measurement will come along when someone who knows the relevant branches of math at the same time takes an interest in Ethics, and matches up those two fields of knowledge: he or she, say, for example, is well-acquainted with what engineers have whimsically dubbed "Fuzzy Logic." This is used for thermostatic automation, for balancing, and many customizing functions; its results come out in decimal fractions, so it offers very-refined degrees of measurement. It is likely ideal for Ethics

The problem of Ethical computation is not inherent, I would ever think, to any lack of mathematical midwives, but rather, to the lack of an atomiziation of the science of value, or, said in other words: theoretical value science is a science with low sperm quality, resulting in a disability apparent in the applied value science, which I've criticized you for before. A disability in acting as natural values, and instead act more like the artificial values you often find in abstracted as opposed to mathematical computer science, almost telling us something along the lines that there does exist something which can be calculated, but we can't know if it's natural (the same way it's hard to know whether artificial atoms at far end of the periodic table are natural or purely dependent on our creation of them), it is artificial and therefore prone to the problems of anything artificial: humans are almost entirely responsible for the workings of it and it only lasts as far as human belief coupled with castrated empirical evidence can take it.

The Voice of Time wrote:

prof wrote:Better tools of measurement will come along when someone who knows the relevant branches of math at the same time takes an interest in Ethics, and matches up those two fields of knowledge: ...

...theoretical value science is a science ...telling us something along the lines that there does exist something which can be calculated, but we can't know if it's natural (the same way it's hard to know whether artificial atoms at far end of the periodic table are natural or purely dependent on our creation of them),....

Value science is founded on an 'axiom' (which, in this context, is, by definition: that which is part empirical and part formal, constructed by the mind.) It is a fertile idea, capable of generating an entire system - one which has practical applications. In the case of Formal Axiology, the axiom is the definition of "value" itself. Value is that which exemplifies its concept, that which fulfills its meaning. 'Full value' is good. "Ethics" is I-value applied to individuals ...as explained and clarified in my earlier posts here, such as "The Natural-logical Law of Conduct."

Sciences not only tell us 'what' but also (when engineers {artists, designers} come along) they tell us 'how'. It is no different for Ethics, as that transitions into science.

Ethics is an application of value science, because the latter can DEFINE the former, as you saw when you read either the College Course manual [in the chapter entitled "What is Ethics?'] or the Unified Theory of Ethics booklet. What other ethical theory actually has a definition of "ethics" that fits in coherently, and is deduced by the very theory?! What other theory has the rigor, employes variables, has the scope to cover such a wide range of data?

Prof. J. B. Schneewind taught me that as modern moral philosophy developed it increasingly treated people as capable of living sociably without external authority.
"Philosophy" he wrote "aided this movement by providing alternative ways to talk about how Ethics was not dependent on its religious and political aspects. In doing so modern moral philosophy created much of the vocabulary" through which the human species were enabled to envisage the kind of self-governing person needed to sustain modern liberal democratic societies.

Schneewind states it this way: "... by the end of the eighteenth century. Kantianism, utilitarianism, and intuitionism set the initial terms for future discussion. All three types of view grew from efforts to show how morality could be supported without reliance on tradition, authority, or revelation. To different degrees contemporary defenders of these still-living positions have argued that everyone can think through moral issues and be moved by themselves to do what they conclude is right. We can thus all be self-governing."

This is a point emphasized by Modern Virtue Theory, that if we improve ourselves with a view to having a moral character we will intuitively 'do the right thing.'
Ethics, the science, agrees with that. Once we Intrinsically-value the moral principles we will act on them without having to look them up in a handbook or look at a 'Periodic Table chart' on the wall.

If you have read all the output by Dr. Katz, then you have earned the right to speak about "low sperm count" and other cute metaphors - but not until then. He offers lots and lots of applications which follow from the theory. And so do Demerest & Schoof. And so does Dr. David Mefford. Life Coaches, psychologists, and business consultants use the tools made available. Also some Educators. ...but still not enough. So learn more about it.

rantal wrote:Ethics, it has here been claimed, can become a science. What then I ask is this, how can such methods, which are necessary and fundamental to science be applied to ethics? How can detachment form the personal perspective and repeatability become criteria within the field of ethics?

all the best rantal

First I shall quote from Appendix 1, of ETHICS: A College Course, and then I shall quote from an unpublished paper I delivered at the Annual Conference of the Hartman Value Institute, Knoxville, Tenn., Oct., 2012.

Here is the first quote:

Dr. Robert K. Smith clarifies understanding with regard to this new discipline in the following remarks: "Because of Dr. Hartman's work, (which he called "formal axiology") we are able to state objectively that Mr. X in Japan is attentive to the uniqueness of others and is utilizing 90% of his potential in valuing others uniquely, while Mrs. J in Ohio is attentive to practical aspects and is using 92% of her potential.

[... The social sciences with which we are familiar ... are inductive sciences.] An example of the process of an inductive science would be trying to predict buying behavior of a sub-group of American, male
executives between the ages of 33 and 48, earning more than $75,000. A person fitting in this group would have probabilities assigned to certain other observed behaviors that are consistent with a certain percentage of the members of this group. So through inductive reasoning we would be able to assert there is a 50% chance that the given individual found in this group drives a leased BMW or Mercedes Benz. This is a beneficial discipline, for it permits social scientists to develop general understandings of certain groups and populations. Its limitation is that… the applications are
culturally and temporarily limited.

Dr. Hartman's development of formal axiology is as revolutionary for the Social Sciences as Newton's was for the physical sciences. From his studies of more than 35 cultures and how the people of those cultures assign value, Dr. Hartman discovered the three
dimensions of value. ... He was aware of a athematical system that had corresponding properties to the value dimensions he discovered. By joining the mathematics and the dimensions of value, he created an objective deductive science that measures how persons value their world and themselves."

And now the excerpt from that paper to the Conference:

Ethics is a value science, Among other things, it derives moral principles. It ideally defines its key terms as they are introduced, defining them in terms of the Axiom of Value and the frame-of-reference that goes with it. I have mentioned the concept “science” several times. Let me say what I mean by that term.

Science observes and measures the world. From those data it infers the empirical laws that govern physical, biological, and moral processes. Explanations of large classes of phenomena or noumena must make testable predictions and be falsifiable. That is, there must be a way to make an observation that could disprove the explanation.

The requirement of falsifiability rules out supernatural explanations. There ought to be a way to disprove a scientific proposition. Science is humble, recognizing that all findings are tentative. When scientists speak of an overarching explanation as a theory the term does not mean, as it can in everyday parlance, somebody's off-the-cuff guess.

“Science” actually comes from the Latin word scientia, which means "to know." That makes sense, since a conventional definition of science is: "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." In other words, the search to know more. A rigorous frame-of-reference provides the theoretical aspect within which terms are defined with some precision and the data is explained. Is Ethics a science? Yes, if it uses the scientific method.

The scientific method is a process that helps scientists investigate a topic and discover the facts. Here, idealized, are the steps involved (not necessarily always in this order):

The first step is to decide your purpose -- ask a question about something.

Next, research the topic and see what's already known.

The third step is to form a hypothesis. This is your guess of the answer to your question.

Then you suggest some experiences (or frame an experiment) to test your hypothesis.

Next, you analyze the data from the experiment. Did the experiment add confirmation to your hypothesis? Or did it disprove the denial of the hypothesis?

Your analysis will create your conclusion--what are the results of the process? Scientists then share their conclusions so everybody can learn from their work.
There is no reason why topics relevant to Ethics cannot be put through this process.

The Science of Value, founded by R. S. Hartman, can provide the rigorous frame-of-reference within which ethical terms are defined and thereby related to the other terms in the system. The scores on a personal values inventory can supply the data to be analyzed and understood. We have explained the scientific method.

The framework -- employing mathematical or logical models -- when applied to the unordered, unexplained data by means of some bridge laws (that tell how to interpret formulas and symbols in a way relevant to the data) …all this serves to order and explain that data. Also, when a time factor is introduced, enables prediction.

ETHICS, as it gets more fully developed, is a systematic body of knowledge that will add to the useful information in this world. Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Medicine, and Ethics are hypothetico-deductive disciplines employing induction along with deduction, and which involve the steps of scientific method I outlined for you before.

I trust, rantal, that this has been helpful in speaking to your concerns. Feel free to ask any questions after you have done the background reading, links to which you will find in my other posts here, such as at the end of "The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts" viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9512.

prof wrote: Value science is founded on an 'axiom' (which, in this context, is, by definition: that which is part empirical and part formal, constructed by the mind.) It is a fertile idea, capable of generating an entire system - one which has practical applications. In the case of Formal Axiology, the axiom is the definition of "value" itself. Value is that which exemplifies its concept, that which fulfills its meaning. 'Full value' is good. "Ethics" is I-value applied to individuals ...as explained and clarified in my earlier posts here, such as "The Natural-logical Law of Conduct."

If you haven't forgotten my criticism, please remember that your "system", or Hartman's system, wasn't exactly an impressive system. I would say "generating an entire system" says little or nothing about the quality of the system.

prof wrote:Sciences not only tell us 'what' but also (when engineers {artists, designers} come along) they tell us 'how'. It is no different for Ethics, as that transitions into science.

You are right (exception: ethics doesn't "transition into science"), that's why there exists such a thing as Applied Ethics, something for which we have an entire forum dedicated to here, to discuss what to do with specific ethical problems as opposed to the subtlety inherent to general theories.

prof wrote:Ethics is an application of value science, because the later can DEFINE the former, as you saw when you read either the College Course manual [in the chapter entitled "What is Ethics?'] or the Unified Theory of Ethics booklet. What other ethical theory actually has a definition of "ethics" that fits in coherently, and is deduced by the very theory?! What other theory has the rigor, employes variables, has the scope to cover such a wide range of data?

My theory has. And ethics can never be an application of value science. Ethics is a throw of opinion, are you saying opinions are scientific by their fact of being opinions? Ridiculous. Ethics creates an initial framework by which science submits to, including rather particularly Axiology. You don't produce the method for calculating before you know what to calculate, and the calculator doesn't define the schematics unless the calculator is deficit, nobody notices and hence the application derived from the schematics turns out faulty. Which is a way to say that if your first have an ethical theory, you can use axiology to define applied ethics by having the ethical theory deligate the reasoning to an axiological sub-framework. Howeverm you can't have an axiology defining theoretical ethics, because there must be a theory about what is good before there exists a method to compute it.

prof wrote:Prof. J. B. Schneewind taught me that as modern moral philosophy developed it increasingly treated people as capable of living sociably without external authority.
"Philosophy" he wrote "aided this movement by providing alternative ways to talk about how Ethics was not dependent on its religious and political aspects. In doing so modern moral philosophy created much of the vocabulary" through which the human species were enabled to envisage the kind of self-governing person needed to sustain modern liberal democratic societies.

Schneewind states it this way: "... by the end of the eighteenth century. Kantianism, utilitarianism, and intuitionism set the initial terms for future discussion. All three types of view grew from efforts to show how morality could be supported without reliance on tradition, authority, or revelation. To different degrees contemporary defenders of these still-living positions have argued that everyone can think through moral issues and be moved by themselves to do what they conclude is right. We can thus all be self-governing."

This is a point emphasized by Modern Virtue Theory, that if we improve ourselves with a view to having a moral character we will intuitively 'do the right thing.'
Ethics, the science, agrees with that. Once we Intrinsically-value the moral principles we will act on them without having to look them up in a handbook or look at a 'Periodic Table chart' on the wall.

If you have read all the output by Dr. Katz, then you have earned the right to speak about "low sperm count" and other cute metaphors - but not until then. He offers lots and lots of applications which follow from the theory. And so do Demerest & Schoof. And so does Dr. David Mefford. Life Coaches, psychologists, and business consultants use the tools made available. Also some Educators. ...but still not enough. So learn more about it.

Off-topic mostly, and then self-defence mechanism at the end: "go and learn more about it, I'm sure if you just keep reading sooner or later you'll agree". Not the kind of thinking worthy of a philosophy-discussion, you don't tell your opponents to "go and read", that's cowardly, tells me you are cheap and can't stand up for what you believe in. SHOW ME! PROVE IT TO ME! I'm not some person you can just hand your bible to and tell "go and read it and I'm sure you'll like it".

I've seen the applications of this stuff, and I stand by what I said. It is artificial, it doesn't say anything about "value-in-and-of-itself", it's a shopping list and an opinion-poll, and you keep telling me it's not, but you haven't proved it to me yet that it isn't. So man up and give me some serious reason to reconsider my opinion about what you are handing me here.

prof wrote:Let us begin this brief glimpse of the history of ethics with Augustine (354-430), who contributed the concept that it is up to man to perfect his own creation, to bring good from evil. Love is what helps us to do this.

Later, Montaigne, in 1588, recommends that the best course for an individual is to listen to his inner voice. If we follow our conscience, he advised, it will guide us.

And Hugo Grotius, in 1624, though he agreed with that counsel, wanted to work out ways that people could get along with each other sociably. He spelled out some empirically-based directions for avoiding quarrels that mediators still use today.

In 1625 Edward of Cherbourg developed some of Grotius’ ideas and further claimed that humans have an intuitive grasp of moral truths which give us a knowledge of natural law. Today that view, as modified, is known as Intuitionism. About the same time, both Pufendorf and Hobbes were advancing the concept of ‘a social contract.’
Ralph Cudworth and Samuel Clarke, writing in the early 1700s taught that there are universal moral principles that our intuitions can reflect and that moral knowledge can make us self-governing. Joseph Butler, and Thomas Reid, in 1788, endorsed the Intuitionist point-of-view also.

Both Schopenhauer (1788-1860) and Albert Schweitzer (1875-1966) emphasized the will-to-live. The former stressed the role of ‘sympathy’ and conscience. [Today we speak of empathy and ground it in brain-neurology.] This philosopher recommended that we not give in to every desire we may have, and instead give our attention to art and to science.

Schweitzer also had a theory of man’s will. In his life he claimed he managed to see the natural pattern of the whole of phenomena - today we speak of the web-of-life - which led him to conclude that this directs us to accept responsibility for others – even for animals with a spinal chord who are capable of suffering pain. He taught: Do not live for yourself alone and your life will then be richer, more beautiful, and happier. Have reverence for life. This is critical.

Bertrand Russell ((1872-1970) in his ethical writings, stressed personal development: happiness for human beings, he concluded, is only possible to those who develop their god-like potentialities to the utmost. He counseled: Make your desires compatible with those of others, and thus reduce conflict.

The Unified Theory of Ethics indicates that we each work out our own ideas, as we commit ourselves to being decent human beings, who aim to be as moral as we can be; yet it may be helpful to know the history of ideas and what we can learn from earlier thinkers who may have had a glimpse of wisdom, a grain of insight, insights that eventually would be confirmed by scientific findings and careful research.

None of this is science.

Chaz wrote: "None of this is science."

No kidding??!

:

I wanted to leave something for you to do.



See, earlier in this thread, reply to rantal above, posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:32 pm as to why it is operationalized by means of a testing instrument; and therefore can propose null-hypotheses and then perform experiments to disverify them, and gain consensus among the experts in the field who use the same test. The test measures how a person thinks, what his/her values are, whether they are consistent with one another, to what degree he cares about people, and thus, by the definition of Ethics, can predict how likely the testee is to behave morally.

It's a start.



Chaz, since you're such an authority on the concept "science", I would ask you:
What would it take? What would it take for you to arrive at a point where you exclaimed "This is science."

prof wrote:Chaz wrote: "None of this is science."

No kidding??!

I wanted to leave something for you to do.



See, earlier in this thread, reply to rantal above, posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:32 pm as to why it is operationalized by means of a testing instrument; and therefore can propose null-hypotheses and then perform experiments to disverify them, and gain consensus among the experts in the field who use the same test. The test measures how a person thinks, what his/her values are, whether they are consistent with one another, to what degree he cares about people, and thus, by the definition of Ethics, can predict how likely the testee is to behave morally.

It's a start.
)

Not really. Humans are a little bit more complicated than bacteria.
I think you lost the plot when you say "The test measures how a person thinks, what his/her values are, whether they are consist....". And then you go into the realms of fantasy when you use the word "predict".
Risible.

prof wrote: I know some of you guys will never be satisfied because you are professional critics.

I know some of us will never be satisfied because you never give us enough to feel fed. And I'm not talking the amount of text, you are very abundant in that regard.

chaz wyman wrote: Humans are a little bit more complicated than bacteria.

I'm glad you told us that.


Now we are among the informed.


Btw, I would add to my chapter on the nature of human nature this:

Humans are pattern-seeking organisms. They like to connect the dots.

They see (and hear) what they expect to see (and hear.)