Philosophy Now Forum

Refuting the argument for cultural relativism used to hold back progress in Ethics.

"Let us put the ideas of our mind, just as we put things of the laboratory, to the test of experience.
In this way we have a method for making facts part of our lives." -- John Locke

"Truth makes all things plain." - William Shakespeare


Progress in ethics would be a coherent and reliable ethical theory.

Consider this: Each of our local planets has a different and distinct orbit; but what they have in common is that they all travel around the Sun. In the same way, each person has his own individuality but what we all have in common is that we seek value. We would like things to be better, we want a quality life.
{As Aristotle put it, everyone aim for the good.} Even Al Capone was confident he was pursuing the good.

Each culture is unique; but not every American, for example, is thoroughly socialized into the American culture - if one could even definitely specify what that culture is.

Hence, for purposes of Ethics it is advisable to focus on the level of the individual rather than on 'culture.' The latter is a very vague concept indeed, and is the province of Sociology and Anthropology rather than moral philosophy. In fact, "Ethics" may be defined as a perspective:

Ethics arises when individuals are viewed as having value. and they are Intrinsically-valued [I-valued.]

How much value does an individual have? Well, far far more than a number on paper has. A person, in general, is worth more than a thing. Numbers can be erased. Things can be discarded and junked. A human being has, when I-valued, by stipulation and by observation, an uncountable amount of value - due to the fact that each property of the individual itself has as many properties as there are integers to count them: one could, theoretically, list properties of properties, one for each of the decimal fractions in that number-series. And value is a function of meaning, of sets of descriptors. Each property-name listed adds meaning to the over all description of that individual, to which one is giving attention. To find all that meaning we concentrate on the individual item or person, giving it or him our full attention. We comprehend it as a gestalt.

In the process of such valuation, the valuer and what he is valuing form a continuum. This (Intrinsic value) is the realm of emphasis, of deep feeling, of empathy, of compassion.

This is the realm of ethics. Ethics is about adding value to the situation. This - Intrinsically valuing - when focused on a person, or a group, is what defines what I call "Ethics." It's a discipline. It has its theoretical aspects and its applied aspects: theory and practice. The entire history of ethical ideas, the history of moral philosophy relevant to ethics, leads up to the new paradigm, to the coherent Ethical Theory now under construction, cited in the links mentioned in my earlier threads.

R. S. Hartman (1910-1973) basing his work largely on ideas from G. E. Moore (1873-1958) determined good as the axiom of a science -- value-science (formal axiology.) This is meta-ethics.

Hartman's breakthrough was to define good and other values as subsets of the set of a thing's properties. The dimensions, Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and Systemic values were determined as cardinalities of these sets. {I, E, and S correlate with the ontological entities Singulars, Particulars (i.e., Categories or classifications), and Universals.} And Ethics is now defined and explained as Intrinsically valuing persons.

Meta-ethics is independent of specific cultures which people happen to have formed in the history of human evolution. It transcends them. Just as Logic and Math can be taught, objectively, all over the globe, so too can Formal Axiology. It proceeds by defining terms and by spinning out the implications of one, or a few, fertile concepts.... the axioms of the system.


Your thoughts?

I like that: clear and concise.

Might it be worth adding that we value the live person? Rather then, say, his soul or essence or the prototype of personhood in some realm of ideas? (Because then, you could be worth more as a political martyr or bodyguard to some defunct monarch, than working in the foundry.) I'd prefer to include other kinds of life beside the human in a value system.

Skip wrote:I like that: clear and concise.

Might it be worth adding that we value the live person? ...

...I'd prefer to include other kinds of life beside the human in a value system.

Glad to be of service! I hope it was clear to other readers too. If one likes what he read, build on it; improve it; upgrade it.

Yes, you are right, I meant to say live, conscious, individuals.

When I spoke of the individual I did not preclude the extension of that concept to other mammals beyond us human beings. Thank you for your compassion toward animals.

Those who accept and appreciate the uncountably-high value (the limitless value) of the conscious individual are then okay with caring and sharing. They are then ethical.

They then are mindful ...especially of The Central Question of Life -- of which I spoke in earlier threads here. They tend to make a habit of complying with it.

Comments?

The fact that we happen "value" someone is a contingent fact, not a necessary one. But even necessary facts do not justify values, if naturalism is correct.

Thus, according to naturalism, values are not "relative": they're mere phenomena with no compulsory implications at all. If cultural relativism is posited, then there is no reason to believe any deontological force exists in anyone's ethics.

Culturalism relativism does not fail because of the "relativity" part of its argument; it fails because it does not follow its own implications all the way to its logical conclusion in moral nihilism.

Immanuel Can wrote:The fact that we happen "value" someone is a contingent fact, not a necessary one. But even necessary facts do not justify values, if naturalism is correct.

Greetings, Immanuel

Thus, it follows by reductio, that naturalism is incorrect. Nature, however, is correct ! And human nature is a part of nature. Also [and not implying that you did so] I believe you would agree that it is important not to commit what G. E. Moore named "The Naturalistic Fallacy." Fortuitously, Hartman's meta-ethical theory avoids committing that fallacy by employing the class-membership relation, and by showing that good is a second-order property - a property of properties - and not a first-order property like yellow is.

Immanuel Can wrote:Cultural relativism does not fail because of the "relativity" part of its argument; it fails because it does not follow its own implications all the way to its logical conclusion in moral nihilism.

Then we are agreed that cultural relativism falls.

Glad to have your confirmation

Thanks for clearing that up, prof.

Oh yes...I agree that naturalism is a complete failure in the moral realm. It can only describe what people *happen* to believe, but it doesn't go even a step in the direction of showing that any burden of duty to obey it exists.

How does Hartman do any better? Can you explicate his point a bit further? For it seems to me that if "good" is a second-order property then it is even less likely to have any compulsory force, since it is only, so to speak, an adjective of an adjective.

Immanuel Can wrote:Thanks for clearing that up, prof...

.. Can you explicate his point a bit further? For it seems to me that if "good" is a second-order property then it is even less likely to have any compulsory force, since it is only, so to speak, an adjective of an adjective.

Hello there, Immanuel

I can see you have an inquiring mind, and I admire you for that. You ask some profound questions, and I believe you have noble intentions. I'd like to understand even further what you believe so that I can make my responses more relevant in helping you fulfill your purposes, and reach your goals.

Perhaps we can become partners in the project of reaching the Ultimate Good for humanity. Aristotle said everything aims for the good; it could just be that folks are ignorant or confused about what that good is. Another way of putting it is: Which way is up?

Hartman noted that the Nazis in his home country were expert in organizing evil. He wondered, Could good be organized as thoroughly? Then he devoted the rest of his life to that task. You can read a rough sketch of his bio here, if you scroll down to it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Hartman
For a fuller bio go the the Institute set up in his honor. A sample of his reasoning you may see here:
http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/axiologyasascience/


He taught me - when I audited his classes at M.I.T. - that a value OF a value is usually a greater value than the merevalue before it is exponentiated. [In the Calculus of Value, one value is the base, and the other is the exponent.] Example: A waiter's waiter ...one who the waiters would choose to wait on them. E.g., A professor's professor. (that's me.).

An adjective OF an adjective is something special. In the case of axiology, good - and value - are quantifiers; analogous to All and Some in logic. Good is an axiological quantifier. It expresses that the judge, the valuer, believes that this x is all there under its concept. Here are some further details:

To get a bit technical, every concept has a name (designator, a sign, a label); an intension (a meaning); and an extension (a set of cases, examples, instances, the class of application.)

The definition of "x is a good C" [the 'Axiom of Value'] is: x fulfills the intension of C, where C is the concept of x. If something exemplifies its concept, we tend to regard it as "good." {A good one of its kind.} To 'fulfill' is to be in a one-to-one correspondence with. The correspondence is between the meaning of x ...wherever the valuer wants to break off the set of adjectives (descriptors)... and the actual properties perceived to be in this x.

If that isn't clear, I can simplify it by saying this: Something is good if it has all the properties it needs to fulfill its purpose (definition, intention.)

A "definition" is a finite subset of the intension of the relevant concept. The rest is the Description (or exposition) of the concept.

A howitzer (you will call) good if it does what a howitzer is supposed to do - in your supposition of what a howitzer is. This is axiological goodness, NOT to be confused with moral goodness. A good howitzer is bad for people. Hartman named it The Moral Fallacy, to confuse ethical good with axiological good.
...That kind of confusion is highly prevalent, as we see in the thinking of ol' man, for example.

A good murderer is a bad person.

Though, we may assert (without paradox): "A bad conscience is a good conscience." Let me explain: A bad conscience (one that is sensitive and educated) is a good conscience (one that is functioning as a conscience ought to.) The sentence sounded paradoxical, but turns out not to be.

The ultimate purpose is to generate value to achieve a quality life for everyone. ...to maximize value.

You speak of 'compulsory force' by which I take you to mean How to spread good in this world of ignorance (as it manifests itself in corruption, violence, cheating, greed, lust for power, arrogance, rankism, mutilation, and other forms of cruelty and abuse, etc.) Don't under-estimate the power of Good once it is organized and mobilized First it is necessary to understand, before we seek to be understood. It is necessary to put people first. Head and hand are not enough. We need also Heart. We need to Intrinsically value.

We need, when something comes up (such as a social interaction, a perceived misunderstanding, a personal crisis, a decision to prioritize) to ask ourselves: What choice can I make and what action can I take, here and now, so as to maximize value?

How can I close any perception gaps? How can I innovate or create a needed product or service? How can I give service with a smile? How can I uplift, or upgrade? How can I render a sincere compliment? How can I make someone feel that they matter? How can I make a difference?

...That's enough for now.

I have a question for you. Have you read my earlier threads here, such as Steps to Value Creation,
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9561
or What is Ethics? or Ends and Means ?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9375
or this one viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10117 [Simply, on Topics pages 1 & 2, go down the list where it mentions my nickname, and click on one that sounds interesting.]

Questions? Comments? Discussion?

This is interesting, prof. Axiology seems to be a kind of taxonomy of pragmatic function.

Perhaps we can become partners in the project of reaching the Ultimate Good for humanity.

I'd like that. At the same time, I'm not holding my breath that we're going to achieve this sort of clarity unless we can also get somewhere with prior key issues like anthropogyny, teleology and morality. The fact that it's abstracted from reality does not seem to me to be a strength, but rather stands to render its formal achievements arid...unless, perhaps, you can show me that's not necessarily the case.

A good murderer is a bad person.

So far so good: I get what you're saying. But is "good" simply a neutral adjective, a handle that fits every pot? I might suggest that analytically it's not. We also speak of "the good," which nounifies it and implies a singular universal. We also have a teleology bundled into every use of the adjective: for example, we only know what a "good" policeman is because we know what constitutes the teleological end of policing. There is also (arguably) a "good" for humanity, if humanity is the product of a purposeful action. If that's right, then it seems to me that a key factor is missing from any purely formalist or functionalist description of value.

You speak of 'compulsory force' by which I take you to mean How to spread good in this world of ignorance (as it manifests itself in corruption, violence, cheating, greed, lust for power, arrogance, rankism, mutilation, and other forms of cruelty and abuse, etc.)

What I had in mind is what you might call deontological force -- that is, that any complete description of morality has to include a proper account of why that morality is obligatory, compelling, required, or mandated, especially in the case of those disinclined to it. When we say to someone, "X is right," we need also to say "...because..."

Don't under-estimate the power of Good once it is organized and mobilized First it is necessary to understand, before we seek to be understood. It is necessary to put people first. Head and hand are not enough. We need also Heart. We need to Intrinsically value.

But even the axiom "people are first" needs legitimation. We need to be able to say why people are, so to speak, obliged to believe and practice it. It is by no means a universal value in itself, and there are very rational doubters of that value.
And what's "heart" got to do with it? I thought the axiological system was purely formal, according to its advocates.

so as to maximize value?

The value of what? Do you mean just the verb, "valuing"? But that wouldn't make sense, since people can "value" evil things...

How can I close any perception gaps? How can I innovate or create a needed product or service? How can I give service with a smile? How can I uplift, or upgrade? How can I render a sincere compliment? How can I make someone feel that they matter? How can I make a difference?

But why not, "How can I get ahead?" "How can I kill my competition?" "How can I maximize my power?" "How can I destroy?" "How can I defeat my enemies?" "How can I keep the existing power structures in place?" "How can I pollinate as many females as possible?" "How can I suck up all the resources?" and so on? What's wrong with those values, in a purely axiological account? What axiom rules them out?
I'm not trying to be difficult, just to probe the foundations of what you're suggesting, to see if there's anything fundamental there.
Continue, please.

prof wrote:Refuting the argument for cultural relativism used to hold back progress in Ethics.

"Let us put the ideas of our mind, just as we put things of the laboratory, to the test of experience.
In this way we have a method for making facts part of our lives." -- John Locke

"Truth makes all things plain." - William Shakespeare


Progress in ethics would be a coherent and reliable ethical theory.

Consider this: Each of our local planets has a different and distinct orbit; but what they have in common is that they all travel around the Sun. In the same way, each person has his own individuality but what we all have in common is that we seek value. We would like things to be better, we want a quality life.
{As Aristotle put it, everyone aim for the good.} Even Al Capone was confident he was pursuing the good.

Each culture is unique; but not every American, for example, is thoroughly socialized into the American culture - if one could even definitely specify what that culture is.

Hence, for purposes of Ethics it is advisable to focus on the level of the individual rather than on 'culture.' The latter is a very vague concept indeed, and is the province of Sociology and Anthropology rather than moral philosophy. In fact, "Ethics" may be defined as a perspective:

Ethics arises when individuals are viewed as having value. and they are Intrinsically-valued [I-valued.]

How much value does an individual have? Well, far far more than a number on paper has. A person, in general, is worth more than a thing. Numbers can be erased. Things can be discarded and junked. A human being has, when I-valued, by stipulation and by observation, an uncountable amount of value - due to the fact that each property of the individual itself has as many properties as there are integers to count them: one could, theoretically, list properties of properties, one for each of the decimal fractions in that number-series. And value is a function of meaning, of sets of descriptors. Each property-name listed adds meaning to the over all description of that individual, to which one is giving attention. To find all that meaning we concentrate on the individual item or person, giving it or him our full attention. We comprehend it as a gestalt.

In the process of such valuation, the valuer and what he is valuing form a continuum. This (Intrinsic value) is the realm of emphasis, of deep feeling, of empathy, of compassion.

This is the realm of ethics. Ethics is about adding value to the situation. This - Intrinsically valuing - when focused on a person, or a group, is what defines what I call "Ethics." It's a discipline. It has its theoretical aspects and its applied aspects: theory and practice. The entire history of ethical ideas, the history of moral philosophy relevant to ethics, leads up to the new paradigm, to the coherent Ethical Theory now under construction, cited in the links mentioned in my earlier threads.

R. S. Hartman (1910-1973) basing his work largely on ideas from G. E. Moore (1873-1958) determined good as the axiom of a science -- value-science (formal axiology.) This is meta-ethics.

Hartman's breakthrough was to define good and other values as subsets of the set of a thing's properties. The dimensions, Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and Systemic values were determined as cardinalities of these sets. {I, E, and S correlate with the ontological entities Singulars, Particulars (i.e., Categories or classifications), and Universals.} And Ethics is now defined and explained as Intrinsically valuing persons.

Meta-ethics is independent of specific cultures which people happen to have formed in the history of human evolution. It transcends them. Just as Logic and Math can be taught, objectively, all over the globe, so too can Formal Axiology. It proceeds by defining terms and by spinning out the implications of one, or a few, fertile concepts.... the axioms of the system.


Your thoughts?

It seems to me that you have not begun to address the question nor state a problem with any clarity.
The solar system is a simple system and is not an apt analogy.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
It seems to me that you have not begun to address the question nor state a problem with any clarity.

Yes, that is your perception of it - no clarity.

What I called "cultural relativism" you may recognize as (what you might speak of as) "moral relativism."

The problem is that it amounts to ethical nihilism.

Readers here have seen your ethical theory, and they have seen mine and they are free to choose among the two as to which is preferable, which more complies with their qualifications as to what an ethical theory should be.

They may require that an ethical system offer guidelines as to how to live (a set of principles), in other words have Normative aspects; that it can be applied to resolve moral dilemmas; that it confirm the accumulated wisdom of the history of ideas in that field; that it employ variables so that it covers a broad range of data; that it specify what is ethical data; that it explains how a conscience works, its relation to the structure of integrity,; how hypocrisy varies inversely with morality; how morality differs from mores; how cybernetics is relevant to it, how evolution affects it, how justice relates to it, and how is "justice" defined and analyzed. My system does all of that - and more.... You claim it is comprised of my "personal views," as you put it, but actually it is a synthesis, an integration, of ideas from many ethical traditions and prior moral philosophies, from Shinto, from Mencius, from Lao Tze, Plato, from Epictetus, Kant, H. Sidgwick, Emerson, Schweitzer, Wm. James, Husserl, Russell, Singer, etc.

Yours says: when a situation comes up, conform to the norms of the culture you happen to live in. It is usually the ethical thing to do. If your neighbors are cannibals, then you must be too, if you want to be ethical. "Culture" is a vague concept, and it is central to your theory. So is "situation." You don't define your terms. I do, at least for some of them. What may be safely concluded is that yours is a Situational Ethics.


People will judge between the two theories and decide.

Immanuel Can wrote:This is interesting, prof. ...

...The fact that it's abstracted from reality does not seem to me to be a strength, but rather stands to render its formal achievements arid...unless, perhaps, you can show me that's not necessarily the case.
... (also) "people are first" needs legitimation.

To understand all this, one needs a background in how S, E, and I were derived (which is formal - and which has to do with applying the Axiom of Value to values themselves. It helps to know Kant's Logik, a book in which he explains the distinctions between constructs, abstracts, and singulars) and then what they - S, E, and I - ordinarily apply to. For heaven's sake, man, with all due respect, have you studied, or even read, the first post in this thread? "Steps to Value Creation" that I referred you to earlier. It emphasizes the application of these tools to daily life:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9561 Does that impress you as "arid"

Immanuel Can wrote:[Prof wrote:] "so as to maximize value?"
The value of what? Do you mean just the verb, "valuing"?

No, that is not what I mean. Here are some ways of generating more value, thus adding to the value in the universe:

How can I close any perception gaps? How can I innovate or create a needed product or service? How can I give service with a smile? How can I uplift, or upgrade? How can I render a sincere compliment? How can I make someone feel that they matter? How can I make a difference?

You ask: But why not, "How can I get ahead?" "How can I kill my competition?" "How can I maximize my power?" "How can I destroy?" "How can I defeat my enemies?"

Killing, defeating 'enemies', wanting power over others, polluting the environment, bringing children into the world without taking loving responsibility for them, are ways of subtracting value ! Being greedy is an obsessive-compulsive disorder requiring therapy. "Sucking up all the resources" is selfishness - which is the very antithesis of living ethically.
There may be nothing wrong with wanting to get ahead - of your own stage of development.

You ask: "What axiom rules them out?" alluding to the questions that morally-confused folks might be asking themselves. I respond: It is the very definition of the field Hartman has named Ethics - which directs us to I-value individuals. Which, as I have explained in many places in my writings, implies that we care about, and respect, persons, and thus we don't want to desecrate their habitat (pollute the planet); nor hurt them by, say, killing, raping, depriving them of information until you see it first [exerting power]; calling them an "enemy" instead of seeing them for what they are - and then seeking to 'defeat' them instead of making friends out of them; destroying more than building and causing people grievous problems instead of problem-solving.

I feel confident that if you only read over the documents offered in the links I have presented in other of my threads, you will have a much-clearer picture of the whole theory, the new paradigm. You may if you wish, even begin with a rather early, and informal, paper I scribbled in 2007: http://www.workforworldpeace.org/ethics_as_science.pdf


'Teleology" is defined as 'the In-value of time.' It is one application of Intrinsically valuing time. It raises questions as to whether the Universe has a purpose, whether it is heading somewhere. I have ideas on this topic, but it is outside the scope of Ethical Theory, and we have enough to discuss that is immediately relevant to Ethics here, so bring it up in a private message.

Not everything necessarily has a purpose. Many individuals do not have one. They can still be morally-good if they fulfill their own high ideals. A good X fulfills the intension of x, where x is a unit class with the proper name, X. x is unique. x is very deep and complex. x is an individual. "To be a criminal" is a low ideal, not a high one. If you hold that ambition you are a living contradiction, affirming life while at the same time hurting it. I am sure someone as sensitive and intelligent as you are grasps these points.

I hope I have addressed some of your concerns.

For heaven's sake, man, with all due respect, have you studied, or even read, the first post in this thread? "Steps to Value Creation" that I referred you to earlier. It emphasizes the application of these tools to daily life:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9561 Does that impress you as "arid"

Indeed I have read it. Yet I have concerns about it. I'm going to go slowly here, not so much for your sake, since you probably know the distinctions that concern me, but for the sake of anyone following who is less familiar with the concepts. Your patience is appreciated.

There are two candidate strategies for metaethics: 1) formalism, and 2) substantive options. Formalism proposes to offer and ethics grounded in some universal formula that has no mandated content. 2+2=4 is a formal mathematical statement, because it doesn't matter what "2" means -- two apples, two goats, two countries, two ideas...whatever -- the formula still works in all cases. Some people think ethics maybe can be like that: one formula that does the job for everyone, but does not specify content at all.

The other option is substantive options. These are metaethical grounding strategies that depend on the excepting of some prior worldview or ontology by the ethical person. Consequentialism is always substantive, because before you can do any ethical work with its precepts you have to accept that the "consequence" it specifies is the right teleological trajectory for your people group or the human race in general. For example, in classical Utilitarianism one has to believe that "maximal pleasure/minimal pain" is the right value for all human beings to aim at. After that, you can make some decisions based on utility; before that, you cannot. Most people do not believe formalism works, but rather take some kind of substantive ethics to be the right way to see things.

So far so good? Both options have a challenge to overcome. Formalism can easily become arid, dry, empty, robotic, or whatever you wish to say. This is because it has a sort of inhuman, formulaic indifference to human content. But far more importantly than that, there are currently no viable formalist options. The one that people *think* might work is Neo-Kantianism: but I think they're wrong about that. I follow Allan Wood, who argues that Kant was not actually a formalist, but was rather a tacit teleologist. His ethics is thus substantive, not formal at all. I think we can see Wood's point if we look at the version of the categorical imperative that specifies the treatment of human beings as ends-in-themselves: for this is not at all formal, and requires the prior substantive belief that human beings have some sort of dignity or desert -- a thing you cannot discern by formula, but must rather hover as an assumption in the background of Kantian thought.

Now, let it also be said that no one ever much bothers with Kant in daily practice. I have yet to meet anyone who makes their moral calculations based on what Kant thought, or on any version of the categorical imperative. Still, there might be such out there somewhere, someone who finds him practically compelling, not just intellectually elegant. But more importantly, if Kant is not really a formalist, then he has the same challenges as any substantive option does.

And what is the challenge for substantive options? Legitimation. They need to show that their particular core value or teleological direction is the *right* one for human beings to be valuing. The problem is that while we have many substantive options, they do not agree on the answer to this question. So they have a duty to convince, presumably by rational means, the proponents of other worldviews to see their values as correct. So far, there is not a decisive winner in this battle, and it looks like there will not be.

To respond to your response, then:

Value is the glue that makes things work. It is a force in the universe like gravity, energy, time and space. It is basic. People need to get clarity about Value; they need to be aware of the Hierarchy of Values, and to go in the intrinsic direction. In this way the inhabitants of this planet – including me and you - will gain value and will have a higher quality of life.

This part of your proposal attempts to be formalist. It attempts to say, "morality is a universal, law-of-gravity type thing, predicated on the idea of 'value' which is a sort of algebraic placeholder in the hierarchy of values." Have I got this right?

But wait: it's not actually formalist at all, just pseudo-formalist. Why do I think so? Well, here you say...

If you ask the average person, say a man who runs a small business, what he wants, he might reply “I want more money” or “I want more customers coming in through my door.” After he gains a certain wisdom he realizes that it is not really more customers that he wants – the money is secondary; it is a means to an end – what he really wants is a greater quality of life. …more leisure, friends to share it with, better relationships, more recognition, more love. He wants a more valuable life, a more-meaningful life. He wants to optimize his well-being, the quality of his life.

In this paragraph, you put substantive content into the placeholder "value." You say, "value" really means "optimizing quality of life," or then you change it to "better relationships," then to "recognition," then to "love," then back to the supposedly neutral placeholder "more valuable," then back to an unspecified "more meaningful life." You're not only importing substantive content without providing legitimation, you're also equivocating your terms so that your teleology amounts to "whatever a person wants."

Well, if your paradigm here is genuinely formal, then "aridity" has to be a worry -- it would lack specific content, and would need to provide its own sort of rational legitimation or categorical imperative. If it's substantive, then there's no reason for anyone to accept it without legitimation being provided by you. If it's both formal and substantive, then you'd be being inconsistent and illogical, since the presence of substantive content of any kind renders a paradigm not-formal.

So I think I'm perfectly logical to pose the sort of questions about it I am. You write:

IC asks: But why not, "How can I get ahead?" "How can I kill my competition?" "How can I maximize my power?" "How can I destroy?" "How can I defeat my enemies?"

You respond: Killing, defeating 'enemies', wanting power over others, polluting the environment, bringing children into the world without taking loving responsibility for them, are ways of subtracting value ! Being greedy is an obsessive-compulsive disorder requiring therapy. "Sucking up all the resources" is selfishness - which is the very antithesis of living ethically.
There may be nothing wrong with wanting to get ahead - of your own stage of development.

If your ethics is substantive, which I think it is, then you have to answer the question of why we cannot chose a different substantive value. Why is, for example, Nietzsche wrong to think "will to power" is the ultimate value, or why are Social Darwinists wrong to think "survival of the fittest" is the ultimate value -- for their worldviews would surely rationalize at least a couple of the things on the list I provide. But you say they're wrong: so why? Formally? or Substantively? And how do you propose to show they are wrong?

In summarizing, my present thought is that maybe your "value" idea takes a great deal too much for granted -- such as the reconcilability of substantive values, or that the appeal to formalism is all that is necessary to produce a genuine formalism.

If I'm wrong on either count, feel welcome to show me. I'd be very interested in seeing those problems defeated -- as would most of the world, I'm sure: for if we could overcome them, then at last there'd be a prospect for some kind of universal ethic.

Whew. I'm going on too long, and I know it. If your view were trivial, I could be much more brief.

There are some fundamental misunderstandings shown in the post just preceding. You do, though, IC, explain things very clearly. You have a gift for good writing. That gift is a blessing. I anticipate a book coming from you ...if you haven't published one already.

You may find it of interest to learn there is one fellow, Murray L. Mantell, a retired Professor of Ethics, at the University of Florida, who still lives by Kant's Categorical Imperative. He taught a modernized version of it in all his ethics classes. [Maybe he is not aware of any better alternative; he claims it is useful to resolve policy matters and ethical dilemmas, and offers a few illustrations. Yet you are so right about its limitations !] He recently issued a small book expounding on it with the title ETHICS PROBLEM SOLVING AND DISCOURSE ON LIVING (2011, University Press of America) 90 pp. available by Inter-Library Loan at your local public library.

As to the confusion in the air about formalism and how it relates to the substance of daily living, I would ask you: Have you yet read "Axiology As A Science" all the way through? http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/axiologyasascience/ - for that article will provide you with plenty of formal discussion, and then will show how it can be, and was, applied in life situations.

And have you read the manual Katz - ETHICS; A College Course, - http://tinyurl.com/24cs9y7 - which is plenty formal in the first few (rather tiny) chapters but later on is plenty informal when it speaks about the importance of the right attitude in order to be a success in life. It is not the best piece of writing for it address Philosophy professors at the outset, and then switches to a layman audience toward the end, as would a 'trade book'. I never claimed to be a great author. {So please forgive the poor style.}

A formal system, using a definist approach, when applied, by means of bridge laws (rules of interpretation), will be relevant to life. This is how physical science works: the math models are very abstract and arid, but the technologies engineered by means of a substantive interpretation of the formal synbols and formulas give us the comforts of life such as the invention of the telephone, the TV, the iphone, etc. The same can occur in Ethics: artists and designers will be inspired by the ideas emanating from the theory to produce ethical technologies, such as more efficient and effective means of education that tend to liberate the student and wake up consciences. {With the primitive concepts then available, Jean Piaget, Maria Montessori, John Dewey, Lawrence Kohlberg, and Peter Demerest have made a start.}

I hope this proves helpful, and results in a fuller comprehension of the big picture.

prof: I have read some of these sources you mention, but remain unconvinced. I've yet to see the point at which my critique of your ethics as substantive is wrong. If I'm wrong, then how about supplying your formula? Kant gave us the categorical imperative: what can you give us?

{With the primitive concepts then available, Jean Piaget, Maria Montessori, John Dewey, Lawrence Kohlberg, and Peter Demerest have made a start.}

I don't know much about Demerest, but the rest is a rogues gallery of weak thinkers. All are dependent on tacit, substantive claims they were never able to justify. Dewey is *certainly* not formal, and got away with making "experiencing" his ultimate teleology, which is ridiculously uninformative at best, and totally unwarranted at worst. (How anyone could not see through that ruse I do not know.) Kohlberg, who was indebted to Piaget, was briefly popular among those who could not see the bias in his characterization of "moral development," but his scheme was narrowly based on his personal conception of male adolescent behavior, premised on an inadequate sample. I think no one takes him seriously since Gilligan et al knocked the stuffing out of his apparently "universal" scheme. In education, he's been completely dropped in favour of "Character Education," another hokey scheme that seeks to pass off substantive ethics as formalist.

These people did not "make a start." Their views were all non-starters, failed attempts to appear formalist while advocating a substantive agenda. None of these have any formal, universal way of looking at ethics.

I will look again at your sources and continue my response on this, but in view of your citation of those examples, I'm increasingly skeptical.

Immanuel Can wrote:prof: ...how about supplying your formula? ...

... None of these [educators you mention] have any formal, universal way of looking at ethics.

I will look again at your sources....

Those educators were working to improve education. They never claimed to have a "formal, universal way of looking at ethics." I'm sorry about the confusion.

I thought I proceeded logically at the outset of ETHICS: A College Course. You say you will follow up, and do the "homework assignments", so to speak. That is good. Once the reading is done, if you have any questions I'll be glad to be of service.

With the Axiom of Value, and set theory, and and the rules of exponents from standard math, once the axiom is applied to value itself, it comes up with three basic dimensions: S, E, and I. Then in End Note 4 of A Unified Theory of Ethics, the chart shows how useful and wide-ranging these analytic tools are for yielding new definitions of terms.

When the axiom is applied to the self-concept we derive the definition of "morality", which is synonymous with "moral value" in the system.

....It all seems to me like a logical procedure.

I requested that you employ this frame of reference to generate new terms (nodes) for the system's network of concepts. These terms would be named like words from traditional ethics glossaries, but they would be related to other terms in the system.