Philosophy Now Forum

What does universal ethics look like in a person and in a society?

At a site called WISDOM COMMONS I found this statement, which I quote for your comments, and your consideration:

“Universal Ethics is a set of principles which apply to all humans, whether secular or religious, independent from any particular faith.

The compilation of Universal Ethics is not the base for a new religion: in particular it does not say anything about metaphysical or liturgical concepts of any kinds. That means that it does not give any explanation for the existence of the Universe (including the existence of man). It does not prescribe any particular ritual. It does not deal with the concept of God. It does not contain any myths, stories or immutable dogmas.

Most importantly, Universal Ethics does not prescribe any formal changes for any existing or future creed.
Universal Ethics are a sort of Moral Constitution which is articulated as a set of specific ethical principles acceptable to all human beings. Under this ‘constitution’ all religions or secular groups can develop (or maintain) their own additional ethical principles.”


Someone named tmckamey responded to the following two questions this way:

What does universal ethics look like in a person?
A willingness to have a thoughtful discussion with anyone, regardless of gender, creed, political affiliation, culture, age. To exhibit compassion and respect for all others regardless of all of the above.

What does universal ethics look like in a society?

Encourage and appreciate what others can offer, in work, in education, in service and political office, regardless of others' culture, religious (or non-religious) views. Finds ways to accommodate people from other cultures, with different family values, etc.. Promotion of human rights over corporate rule and governments that infringe on the inherent right of the people.

As for my own views, see the papers listed at the end of the earlier post, "The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts" here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9512
Start with LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, and continue on to Unified Theory, and then you will know what I believe on this topic. For the most part I agree with the statements offered above, at the outset.

Sounds very Panglossian. The only universal ethic is that none exist.

John and Skip and everyone else:

We know that at present people the world over do not
"exhibit compassion and respect for all others regardless... "

Nor do they at present encourage and appreciate what others can offer, nor do they actively find ways to accommodate people from other cultures, with different family value. And many fail to promote human rights over corporate rule; as well as oppose governmental infringement on the inherent right of the people.

This is not exactly news.

However, when a science of Ethics is developed and it eventually acquires a fraction of the respect that the science of Physics has, and it issues technologies that make it easier to live an ethical life, how do you know that people, or world culture, may not change - change for the better from a moral point of view. You can't foretell the future. The new science may have an impact; or it may not. I don't know, and you don't know.

How will it be developed? By sharpening up the vague, ambiguous concepts of Ethics, such as peace, happiness, success, free will, liberty, integrity, sincerity, authenticity, and morality I have already started on the latter concept. Check out my thread on that topic. When the concepts are clarified and are sharpened they are getting ready to be handled by science. I have a few ideas on that as you noted when you read Katz - ETHICS: A College Course and the other essays to which links were offered in the thread "The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts: and in "Ethics in a Nutshell."

The Dalai Lama and Gandhi are a good place start. The problem I see is what I would call 'human entropy.' In other words, if we haven't gotten it right in all these years (with less world population), what needs to happen in order to do so? Our attempts usually bring about systems more Draconian than the original. At the end of the day, we must remember the Dalai Lama lost his country, and Gandhi lost his life. Counting on the common man who is only worried about the "pebble in his sandal" is a crap shoot at best.

Hi there, John K.

I'm not - just yet - counting on the common man. I'm counting on you, and those capable of applying the advanced intelligence they have, to build a science of ethics, which then will, when applied, result in new technologies which will make life simpler and easier in the respect of living morally. One example, that is rather effective, in that it results in people who have completed the four sections of it living more ethically than they did before, is this webinar course - which will, by its very design seeking feedback, improve over time, becoming more concise, more precise, even-more effective - is this one:

http://www.amindforsuccess.com

The authors of the course claim that no one can do all the assignments and stay with it to the end without it affecting their life for the better ...in the ethical sense of "better." They suggest withholding judgment, philosophical critiques/protestations, etc., until one has gone through the entire course; experience will be the best teacher.

Those who have taken it say that their lives are richer in value - including the values that really count (from an ethical perspective.)

They praise the experience !!

As I see it, the course will eventually be put into language little kids can understand and be taught in grades 4-12 as part of the curriculum. [...Maybe in some other country than the USA, at first.]

This is only a small sample of the new developments coming. Today, now that Physics is about 400 years old, new technologies are pouring out at us daily.

It is not hard for me to imagine that the same will occur in the ethical realm. At first, improved design of systems (keeping in mind the Hierarchy of Value discovered by Dr. R. S. Hartman) and then the process of continuous value generation once the systems are re-designed and upgraded constantly; they will become more pointed toward efficient ethical results.

Here - in addition - are links to some free-of-charge essays for you to read, reflect upon, and enjoy:

LIVING THE GOOD LIFE
http://tinyurl.com/aho5cyq

A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS
http://tinyurl.com/crz6xea

ETHICAL ADVENTURES
http://tinyurl.com/38zfrh7

ETHICAL EXPLORATIONS
http://tinyurl.com/22ohd2x

ASPECTS OF ETHICS
http://tinyurl.com/36u6gpo

Comments? Questions?

I want to ask something and maybe this thread is the right place for it:

What must be in place conceptually before universal ethics is possible? Rational discussion requires A) a belief in reason and B) a common basis. Universal ethics therefore assumes that reason is universally uniform and universally binding, you might find some objectors to this claim, but I don't think its particularly contentious. The second is more important and that brings me to my question: What basis is assumed to be universal? Particular to ethics is the "good". One must assume there is ultimately a universal precept of "good". In other words, it must be true of every person that the assumed common notion of "good" holds for them regardless of whether they agree or are aware of it or not, so what is it?

HegelsBagels wrote:k I want to ask something ... and that brings me to my [important] question: What basis is assumed to be universal? Particular to ethics is the "good". One must assume there is ultimately a universal precept of "good". In other words, it must be true of every person that the assumed common notion of "good" holds for them regardless of whether they agree or are aware of it or not, so what is it?

Thanks for a good question, HB

In the post just preceding yours, links were offered for LIVING THE GOOD LIFE and for A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS. Both of those - the former more informally, and the latter in more detail - take up the issues early on, as to a theoretical, formal (and thus universal) definition of "a good x" -- actually "x is a good C" (a good instance of its class-concept.) and thus defines the concept "good" in context, in such a way that it informs what x is good as, or good for.

It takes the vagueness out of the utterance "x is good" and provides an explication of it, that when applied to life, applied in practice, makes enormous sense. It serves to close many a gap in perceptions among communicators and discussants - a gap which often leads to violent disputes and unnecessary conflicts.

Furthermore, the definition {also known as The Axiom of Value} is fertile enough to give us - as a bonus - definitions of "fair" "not bad" "mediocre" "bad" "lousy" and "terrible."[See the presentation by a character named Mark in the Unified Theory booklet... for details.] He also goes on to explain what "moral goodness" could mean, based upon the same logic. Of course, to keep the discussion brief and to the point, he just touches on it, sketchily, and the essay ought to be read as a whole, a gestalt, to round out the picture and get a fuller comprehension of the topic.

I also summarily took up the formal definition in several of my earlier posts here which I guess you might have skipped over, thus bringing up the need to ask.

Ordinary folks don't know much about the pure theory in Physics, nor the Standard Model for Physical Chemistry, yet this does not prevent them from switching on lights, starting up car motors, running washing machines, calling on iphones, or using many other of the physical technological marvels available. The same will be true when there are lots of ethical technologies at hand for people to take advantage of, and benefit from.


As Descartes would say "iphone therefore I am."



p.s. For a rigorous, highly logical, formal definition of "x is good" as a C, see Ch. 1 of Katz - ETHICS A COLLEGE COURSE, which you can google.

As to the first question you raise, yes, I agree that the capacity to reason is shared by brains all around the Earth. As civilization and western-style education spreads to countries formerly tribal and with cultures of confused identity, such as Nigeria today, or Somalia, you will see folks able to come to the same sensible conclusions about what works for the human species to adapt, to survive, and to flourish. They will concur that air pollution is bad for our lungs; that deserts can be turned into gardens or solar farms, that free energy is better than having to endure hard labor to get it; that comfort beats misery and suffering, that harmonious relations are easier to live with than constant strife and conflict, that gaming and olympic sport is better than actually killing in war.

Here is a quote I found which stands the test of time, and could be part of a universal ethic:


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

John K wrote:... I see is what I would call 'human entropy.'...if we haven't gotten it right in all these years (with less world population), what needs to happen in order to do so? ....

John

You speak of "human entropy" and ask (perhaps rhetorically): " if we haven't gotten it right in all these years..." You imply we'll never get it right.

I don't agree about "human entropy." The human species is in its childhood, if not its infancy. What's a hundred years in evolutionary time !

I believe that in 100 years from now, or maybe a lot less, moral technologies being developed will spread rapidly throughout the global village, as the world becomes a smaller place, more interactive, more connected.

I refer you to already existing ethical technologies like Axiogenics, the X Prize, distributed programming, nationwide high-school challenges to solve an interesting problem; social media.

I refer to commercials such as the Nationwide Insurance "Good" - now on YouTube; and the latest Prudential Insurance TV commercial on the theme "Love" (not yet posted on the web.)

Also, the invention of the World Brain (the internet) and AI improvements such as IBM's Watson computer program, since upgraded.
{See Ray Kurzweil's homepage or his predictions of what humans will become as they merge with computers.}

Also songs composed and mass disseminated like the one by B. J. Thomas -
[the lyrics are here: http://www.cduniverse.com/b.j.-thomas-u ... 464054.htm -
the music is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cEZjSp0ZSQ -]. Give it a listen.

Also teaching videos like this one by Dr. Rifkin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g Check it out

....Very encouraging.

prof,

I asked the question I did because the answer did not appear in previous posts, or perhaps I missed it. It is, as simply as I can put it, the following:

a universal field of enquiry requires a universal basis, which is to say some foundational claims which are immune to disagreement. Consider science for example: the best and only criterion for evaluating truth claims about the world we share is rational coherence of explanations of observed phenomena coupled with verification through prediction of future observations. Anyone who disagrees with this is simply wrong, and we declare them to be either ignorant or deluded. Science is a universal field of enquiry. A similar point could be made about mathematics, or linguistics.

So what can make ethics universal? What is it that you can say about morality that applies to every person that is immune to disagreement?

prof wrote: I believe that in 100 years from now, or maybe a lot less, moral technologies being developed will spread rapidly throughout the global village, as the world becomes a smaller place, more interactive, more connected.

Yes, but these technologies are also a two-edged sword. Think of a sine wave; any value above the x axis representing 'good' while those values below represent 'bad.' Apply this analogy to something like nuclear power with its many benefits as well as its many drawbacks. It can do good things, but look out when failure occurs. It can provide clean power, or wipe out a city (Japan has seen both aspects of this sine wave effect). Your model projects a positive outlook, but what about the area "beneath x?" In other word, the further the curve can potentially deviate from x, the bigger spread we have between desirable and undesirable outcomes. Ethics might be in for a very rough ride.

John K wrote:

prof wrote: I believe that ... moral technologies being developed will spread rapidly throughout the global village, as the world becomes a smaller place, more interactive, more connected.

Yes, but these technologies are also a two-edged sword. ...like nuclear power ,,,. It can do good things, but look out when failure occurs. It can provide clean power, or wipe out a city...Japan has seen both aspects of this....
Your model projects a positive outlook, but what about ...undesirable outcomes. Ethics might be in for a very rough ride.

Hi, John

I see you have learned to curb your enthusiasm.

In the earlier post I refer to air pollution, and to solar farms. That could be a clue - to those who are alert - as to what I think about nuclear energy plants. I am exclusively for Green Energy, was opposed to nuclear since way back before the Yucca Mountain controversy in Nevada on the issue of transporting and of disposing of nuclear waste.

Peter Diamandis & Steve Kotler, in their book ABUNDANCE, which I have plugged in earlier threads here, has a section at the end of this unique little volume which explicitly gives the downsides of each helpful new technology which they have mentioned (as fulfilling a pressing need) in their evidence-laden book.

You are correct that new inventions, both social and physical, have a downside. Is that a reason not to work to feed the hungry, nor to provide education for deprived African children? Diamandis does not think so. I agree with him it is worth doing. There are many videos of him speaking on YouTube: ...worth viewing. I recommend that you ask your local librarian to acquire his book if the library doesn't already have it.

Here is a link to a transcript of an interview with Diamandis by Sam Harris: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/bett ... -you-think



Give hope a chance !

.

prof wrote: I see you have learned to curb your enthusiasm.

How so? I am a bit of an Schopenhauerian pessimist I suppose. The poor are just as rotted as the rich.

Hope - i could safely say, the only hope of mankind, is here: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
and it has formidable enemies - not least, that bastion of self-delusion about liberty and equality, the USA.

Greetings, Skip

You present us with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I agree with you that these rights ought to be upheld.

The Declaration serves as a Constitution for the world.

The document was formulated by Eleanor Roosevelt, who was a great advocate for social justice - which is social ethics in action. For many years until her death she wrote a daily column which was carried in many newspapers. She made a great contribution to mankind.

In Aspects of Ethics you will find a reference to the topic of human rights: http://tinyurl.com/36u6gpo - pp. 39-42.

There you will find an explanation of what is a "human right" and some commentary and discussion. Enjoy !