Philosophy Now Forum

Earlier, in another thread, I defined a "good action." See the 5th paragraph here for the criteria: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10580

However, for purposes of theory construction in Ethics I do not believe it is advisable to build a theory around the concept "action." Let me explain why.

Although some actions most ethically-sensitive people would admit are clearly wrong - for example, first-degree murder, holding slaves, bribery, pimping - for they may take into consideration both intention and circumstances. However most actions fall into gray areas. They are not matters of black-or-white. They are hard to decide.

In making decisions about right and wrong, it would help if we agree on definitions for the concepts "right" and "wrong." So let's do that now, by means of contextual definitions:

It is "right" to be good and to do good.

It is "wrong" to be bad and to do bad.

{Good and bad have previously been rigorously defined in the Unified Theory of Ethics which you may have read by now. "A good x" was defined in several of my earlier threads as well. It spells out what x is good for, or is good as.... because it specifies under what concept x falls.}
See http://tinyurl.com/crz6xea


A person of good character is devoted to being good (ethically and morally) and thus will tend to create good conduct when he or she acts. In other words, as I argued in the Unified Theory booklet, a person of good character will tend to do 'the right thing.' He/she will tend to avoid doing wrong.

Hence, it is preferable to construct an ethical theory around the concepts of creating value and also of building a good character: which calls for continuous self-improvement. There are a host of internet sites that can assist in the latter project. And one's mentor or values-coach does this as a calling or a profession, and can be consulted for useful ideas one can cherish. They will not be "mere ideas" but will have an existential loading; i.e., they will be ideas one may invest oneself in, and get excited about. (Speaking axiologically) they are the Intrinsic upgrading the Systemic - or in symbols: S to the I power. They are value Compositions.

Comments? Questions? Improvements? Suggestions?

A student once asked me what do I mean when I speak of suffering and of well-being? This is my response:

Suffering and well-being......you'll recognize them when you see them. You know what suffering is; you have experienced it.

Check up on Romney's life-style - except for his wife's illness - and you will get a good sense of how well-being looks. Also examine how the Dalai Lama lives, and note how happy he is. This too is well-being. Examine the attitude of some super-centenarians, the ones who smile a lot, and who seem to have very few, if any, health problems. They can tell you about well-being. In literature, take Zorba, the Greek, as an example of one who claimed to have a high quality of life. That too is well-being.

No amount of well-being justifies any suffering nor misery. We don't need more billionaires; what we need is to raise up the miserable and destitute of this Earth to a level where they enjoy the basic necessities of life, at least the minimum to survive without traumatic worry.

I trust I have given you some thoughts upon which to reflect.

In the meta-ethics, meaning is the measure. The more meaningful a life, the more quality it has, the greater is the state of well-being. Those with enlightened self-interest understand that until all do better, no one really has the highest quality of life. The closer we come to eliminating destitution, and extreme poverty, the closer we are getting to true well-being. Each for all, and all for each. Unity within diversity. In unity there is strength. Let us, as the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution says, provide for the general welfare. Then you will see more well-being; and you will know you have seen it.

In summary, the ethical system known as Katz - A Unified Theory of Ethics [in four parts], as updated, recommends that we Maximize Well-being and that we Minimize Suffering to the extent we possibly can; but if we have to choose between where to put our energy, time, and resources it is important to know that MINIMIZING SUFFERING takes top priority. Empower the people at the bottom rung of the social mobility ladder first so they will have equal opportunity to better themselves as the rest of us have. Enable them to succeed in life ....and, as a result, we ALL will be better off.

And that, friends, is the right way to go.

And now we are clearly able to tell Right from Wrong

The Cambridge University scholar, Simon Blackburn, is correct when he asserts that any act that hurts is a wrong act, and is unethical.



After presenting his argument he concludes, with emphasis: An act that hurts is a wrong act - and we know it! Period.*


_______________
*) Simon Blackburn, RULING PASSIONS (1998) -. ISBN 0-19-824785-0.

.



Excellent thread.


Now this is the way the forum should work.



Well written, well supported thesis, with a logical conclusion.



Well done. Thank you.




.

Hi, Bill

Thank you.

Thank you for carefully reading and studying the thread, and for recognizing the merit it may have. I really did strive to support the claims I made, and to offer further details in the references provided..

I hope it will start a good discussion on the topics raised. And maybe someone will have the curiosity to check out Ethical Adventures, which is Part II of the Unified Theory of Ethics.http://tinyurl.com/38zfrh7

If they like this, then they could go on to take a look at Ethical Explorations
http://tinyurl.com/22ohd2x
to view the forum dialogue that sprung from my imagination as it explores various topics pertaining to Ethics. All the characters are fictional yet the subject matter discussed is not. It is highly relevant.

Ethical Theory is what this Forum is all about. Though how can we totally separate out Applied Ethics? We can't. This is a discipline in which the practice is just as vital as the theory; they go hand in hand. The same applies to Individual Ethics and Social Ethics: we need to give attention to both. As the individual improves morally s/he improves society, and as the social and cultural standards are raised, this helps uplift the individuals in it.

These are what is called "virtuous circles."

.


Just read your link to Ethical Explorations.

Very good.


Thank you for providing.




.

Hi, Bill

I take it you just read Ethical Explorations by M. C. Katz, Ph.D. You got something valuable out of it. ...Glad to hear it.

Has anyone here ever heard of Effective Altruism? Peter Singer, of Princeton, is promoting it in this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_singer_t ... ruism.html
He sees it as applied ethical theory; a way to relieve, and eventually to eliminate, world poverty - beginning with poverty in developing countries.

Part of it is finding charities that are effective, and much thought has been put in on that by him and the people he informs us about in his lecture.

Part of it is tithing oneself and thus having a little to contribute for an altruistic purpose.

The most basic part is caring; and he presents the motto at the Bill & Melinda Gates website, namely, "Every person is of equal value."

I agree with that. The definition of "Ethics" within the Unified Theory of Ethics is that each individual is viewed from the perspective of I-value, that is, the individual is seen as of infinite value,....or, if you prefer, as of uncountably-high value - as a life to be reverenced.

From that all else follows.

We then will know how to conduct ourselves as we encounter others. Now we will know to be good to ourselves, to not be a martyr, to not indulge in self-abuse, to form healthy habits, to be what Dr. Singer refers to as altruistic.

Bill, you may care to look at Aspects of Ethics. Here is a link to it.
http://tinyurl.com/36u6gpo

.




Just read Aspects of Ethics: Views through a New Lens


Really liked the content and the way you use fictional characters to express and develop concepts. Reminds me of the books on Socrates.


Well Done.


Is Wade Harvey the on-line publisher?



.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.




Just read Aspects of Ethics: Views through a New Lens

Really liked the content and the way you use fictional characters to express and develop concepts. Reminds me of the books on Socrates.

Well Done.

Is Wade Harvey the on-line publisher?
.

Greetings, Bill

Thank you. Thank you. I am glad you liked the reading experience.

Wade does serve as the host for my scribbles. I don't have a website so he contributes one of his as a way of creating value for the world. He is a programmer and web-page designer, and knows a lot more about the internet than several of us put together. He cares. He wants human betterment and he is aware that if we can eliminate hunger on this planet - and he believes we can - then we are all better off.

He knows that money can't buy happiness, yet if we can lift up the lot of the miserable and destitute on this Earth we optimize the well-being of even the super-rich as well as everyone else.

He not only is aware of the principles of Ethics but he actually practices them. He is a good man.

hey Prof I've sent you a message with a challenge for a new topic. I'm excited how you'll wrap your head around it x)

The Voice of Time wrote:hey Prof I've sent you a message with a challenge for a new topic. I'm excited how you'll wrap your head around it x)

You may well have something there ! It still needs work, though. I didn't quite understand it. Some actual examples from real life would help. Write me some more about it, please.