Philosophy Now Forum

I am pleased to announce the launching of a new extension to the Unified Theory of Ethics, post-dated by a couple of days from now

The latest - free of charge - addition to the Unified Theory of Ethics presented logically - written for philosophers and philosophy students - has just been released It is in the form of a 23-page pamphlet (if downloaded and printed out on both sides); you will not want to miss this mind-expanding reading experience.

BASIC ETHICS: A systematic approach

Here is a link to it:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf


Please give us your impressions of the manuscript. All constructive comments are welcome. As it says within the document, it is humbly offered as a proposed ethical theory, to be applied in practice by the reader, and may do, until a better theory comes along.

If one has a better approach to the topic, then replace this theory with that new one. Or -better yet - upgrade BASIC ETHICS. 1.0 will then become 1.1 ...or even 2.0 and the author will welcome such a development wholeheartedly.

Comments? Questions? Reviews?

As you may recall, the first part of A Unified Theory of Ethics defined, and explained the structure of the human conscience. It also defined and analyzed the concept "integrity". It had a good chapter on Business Ethics, and on motivation. It discussed the relation of Means to Ends. It outlined what is unique about human beings, what distinguishes them from the other animals. Here is a link to it:
http://tinyurl.com/crz6xea

Then, the second part, Ethical Adventures, http://tinyurl.com/38zfrh7 - efined and analyzed the concepts "Justice." "greed," and "self-interest." It did the same for "authenticity" and for "kindness." It showed how caring is a matter of degree, and explained the various degrees. It explicated "conflict" and "harmony." It had a larger section on Business Ethics, productivity, and moral incentives. It, at the outset, discuss "moral beliefs" and their relationship to scientific evidence. It explained the concept of "the ethical radius."

Now the new part, Basic Ethics: A systematic approach, http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz has a coherence to it that the earlier parts did not have: it employs the same set of tools throughout, which provides a unity to the whole effort. It shows their wide applicability, their utility in tying Ethics together into an actual system. Of course, it is incomplete; there are large areas of ethical data that this new paradigm does not yet cover. It never will be complete. It aims to be consistent, though. Kurt Goedel proved that a system cannot be both - consistent and complete.

What do you think? Does ethical theory need to be more systematic? Is the current proposal as logical as the author wants it to be?

-

I find myself overwhelmingly unimpressed. Not only is the system proposed less straightforward and less elegant than the three major systems it (rightly) identifies as its secular competitors, it's also possessed of a set of its own values which, unlike them, it does not come close to justifying ontologically, as well as a false impression of exactitude derived from the arbitrary invocation of numbers and numerical symbols.

Many instances of its arbitrary and unjustified nature could be produced, but let's just do one. According to the theory, "ethics" is "the department of knowledge, that is generated when one I-values individuals." However, how does one prove beyond a reasonable doubt that "I-valuing" is justified -- and not just justified, but the primary value that determines the entire ethical system? Not only that, but such a statement inevitably puts "E - valuers" or "other primary value valuers" outside the realm of the "ethical" arbitrarily. Yet there are many people who remain unconvinced that "I-values" are primary. All the system ends up doing is ignoring them because they interfere with this "tidy" theory.

The account here provided shows nothing that a reasonable person should find convincing to sponsor belief or compel morality. Like all such accounts, it simply lacks any authority or force to compel moral duty.

Thank you, Immanuel Can

Let's take up your points one at a time. The paper defined its field of inquiry. It named it Ethics, and argued that if one read further on, one would come to see why this is an appropriate name to put on this study - since it deals with conduct, moral principles, conscience, hypocrisy, corruption, integrity, etc.The justification for the definition's reasonableness and acceptability is that the contrary of it leads to contradictions. Permit me to elucidate:

If the denial of the Hartman/Katz definition of 'Ethics' is assumed ... if it is assumed that some folks, say yourself, are worth less than the high figure that Basic Ethics assigns to individuals, then philosophers are left with the problems of explaining why some are worth more. Are they a god-appointed elite? Who made them superior? [I readily admit that Nelson Mandela was better than I, but not morally superior, and he would be the first to insist that this is so. He also was quite capable of explaining why. I shall not here go into my background of work in the Civil Rights Movement, but my close association with James Farmer and Bayard Rustin may serve to explain something... to those who 'have the eyes to see'.]

I detect a misunderstanding: the previous post you wrote states " the three major systems it (rightly) identifies as its secular competitors" when - as a matter of fact - the systematic approach of that paper does not do this at all. Instead it integrates into itself the three traditional schools, as a careful reader who studies the theory can plainly observe.

ANOTHER MISUNDERSTANDING: You write: "...how does one prove beyond a reasonable doubt that "I-valuing" is justified -- and not just justified, but the primary value that determines the entire ethical system?"
Both "I-value" and "Ethics" are defined into being in this system. Since when do definitions have to be "proved"? And please inform us how does one prove a definition? Although I may be wrong, I think what you are asking for here is why the definition of I-valuing is an acceptable one?

If so, the document,BASIC ETHICS, devotes lots of space to arguing that this is a valuable concept to have, for it has so many functional and practical applications in daily life. Have you never been involved? If you were - if you gave yourself to a hobby, a craft, a woman or a partner, a project, worked hard to obtain a degree or certification - then you were Intrinsically valuing, especially if you were emotionally-involved, began to identify with what you were valuing or judging, even began to bond with it.
Consider this: In the case of the critique you just offered of a theory, an I-value appears in the calculus depicting the situation, though the "I" (for Intrinsic) , in the exponent, has a negative sign in front of it. S is the base, standing for a system. S-to-the-minus-I is the correct symbol to depict your judgment: a wholehearted put-down of a new theory.

Schopenhauer anticipated your over-reaction {"overwhelmingly unimpressed"} when he set forth his observation with these immortal words {translated from the German} "All great new ideas when presented pass through three stages. First they are ridiculed. Second they are violently opposed. Third they are accepted as being self-evident." He was a bright fellow; he contributed some good concepts that Ethics can make use of. I had a blog on some of the history of ethical ideas. Check it out.
The novel ideas eventually are embraced as the 'conventional wisdom'. We might add this fourth stage: "Everyone claims they thought of it first...."

I'm not sure how you got the false impression that I-valuing (or using I-value as the defining basis for this field of research), to quote you, "inevitably puts "E - valuers" or "other primary value valuers" outside the realm of the "ethical" arbitrarily." The fact is that I-value, a fortiori, by its very meaning, includes E-value, S-value, and even Transposed value [fractional value] within it. Just as (the number) Aleph-one includes Aleph-null and finite amounts, so does a concept with an Aleph-one cardinality include lesser cardinalities. It's funny; the author felt he devoted too much time and space to explaining these technical foundations (in that it might scare away general readers), but it appears from the difficulties you experienced that evidently he didn't devote enough!

You gripe that it is " possessed of a set of its own values which, unlike them, it does not come close to justifying ontologically."

With all due respect, I ask of you: 1) How would you justify values ontologically? 2) Did you somehow miss the application to Ontology that was offered when the paper explained that S-value applies to constructs; E-value applies to abstracts (categories abstracted from concrete reality), sometimes referred to as 'particulars'; and I-value applies to singulars (unique beings.) Further, although we are straying from a discussion of ethics, the same value dimensions can generate an entire mini-Ontology, as follows:

Degrees of substance- or modes of Being: S: Essence. E: Existence. I: Reality.

Essences consist (in human minds.) Existents exist. While Realities persist.

Furthermore, if the "invocation of numbers and numerical symbols" do not make for "exactitude", then what does?? And what, for heaven's sake, is "arbitrary" about their use? This isn't about me! Though if anyone cared to ask me, the whole package seems quite fitting to me, but I'm only a professor of Moral Philosophy, now retired. Perhaps I haven't had enough experience yet, at age 83. I'm working on it; I'll get better! Tell us though, what would it take to impress you? We can't have you going around unimpressed like this!!

I shall not cite the exact page but a passage in the booklet clearly explains how in science symbols, and math equations, become guidance for living life ...have this "force" you are looking for. They are supplemented with rules of interpretation that make them relevant. Then engineers and designers come along and do something with the findings. It is, and will be, the same in Ethics - as a study discipline. It seems you haven't followed up on the clues I offered in earlier threads,, have not yet investigated the test that arose as a result of value-theory research, the test known to counselors, therapists, life coaches, and psychiatrists as the HVP, the Hartman Value Profile. It produces objective results, though it is a projective test. Its findings are of a statistical nature. The Value Quotients come out in decimal numbers. Its validity has been checked time and time again by many different means.

Finally, we are indebted to you for your response.

Thanks for sharing.

Well, the sarcasm goes nowhere. It certainly does nothing to save the project. If complaints were due in 2013, then you may recall I voiced some then. I do not see the items I pointed out at that time adequately addressed in this project. It looks like the idea was going to go ahead no matter what principled objections anyone raised, either then or now. If so, is that because it is not only incorrect but incorrigible as well? So it would seem.

The basic problems remain: anyone advocating an ethics has to have some sort of authoritative basis from which to speak. The right place to look for such a thing is in ontology. This proposal has no such grounding. The act of a human valuing something is not self-justifying: humans clearly sometimes value things that your system would be at pains to identify as misguided at best, or evil at worst. But you have a burden to prove your justification of your own values. As for the skeptics, they have no such duty until they advance some positive project in the place of yours. But you, as you propose to advance a positive ethics, have that duty right away. That is why this...

if it is assumed that some folks, say yourself, are worth less than the high figure that Basic Ethics assigns to individuals, then philosophers are left with the problems of explaining why some are worth more. Are they a god-appointed elite? Who made them superior?

...is a wrong-headed rejoinder. You've claimed you have a positive ethics to offer. No one else in the discussion has so far proposed to do so. So you bear the burden. You've imposed it on yourself. But what are we to conclude here? For it seems you just can't meet it. If you can, do it.

Both "I-value" and "Ethics" are defined into being in this system.

Quite so. And until you show your definitions are not arbitrary, and that your ordering of them is rationally necessary, such things are merely arbitrary. Again, you need to show you have more than semantics, and more even than a personal-empirical reading to back you. You need to show you have it *right*. In sum, you need to provide legitimation. So far, there is none in the paper.

You did indeed ask for "constructive" comments. Perhaps I misunderstood: I thought you didn't just mean "gratuitously approving" comments or "unthinking buy-in," but something that would actually point to key areas where your "construction" was in need of shoring up so that you could "construct" it better. But it seems I was wrong.

Good luck with your project if you don't do the ontological groundwork to produce any legitimate or duty-creating force for it. But in its present form, I suspect that anyone who understands meta-ethics will see through it right away.

Thank you, Immanuel, for your dignified and respectful response.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would expand upon what you mean by "do the ontological groundwork"; could you be more specific about it?

I'm sure I could learn a lot from you, if you would be so kind as to provide more detail as to exactly what it is you have in mind.

Yours for Ethics,
Dr. Katz

What I mean by "ontological groundwork" is that you need to show that your ethics is grounded in realism, and makes a plausible account of ethics in light of the way the world really is, conveying a duty to obey on the basis of truths known about the real world.

That takes some unpacking. But it goes in this direction: there must be something in the universe, something you can purport to verify, that makes your particular account of ethics morally compulsory. This is because ethics is really not about "valuing" per se, since we can all "value" all sorts of things, but about the relations *between* human beings -- about what one human being owes to another -- and particularly about our obligations to one another on those occasions when we have compelling feelings or motives for doing something unethical.

So what you need to show is that even if someone were a) oblivious to your "values" and b) strongly motivated in a way contrary to your own ethical values, that person would still have a moral *duty* to follow your ethical deliverances. The best way to do that is to refer to ontological presuppositions that every genuinely rational and moral agent is going to concede. Short of that, ethics has no obligatory or compelling force, and can justly be ignored by a rational agent.

Seems prof is the same person as "deepthot/thinkdr" He provides a similar babble ethics writing, with his nonsensicle S I and L values.

He makes comparison to concepts and objects unlrelating to ethics and moral, too long and too talkative.

HexHammer wrote:Seems prof is the same person as "deepthot/thinkdr" He provides a similar babble ethics writing, with his nonsensicle S I and L values.

He makes comparison to concepts and objects unlrelating to ethics and moral, too long and too talkative.

I don't know who 'deepthot/thinkdr' is; however, there are indeed similarities with another repetitive eejit called wayne or shirley or summat...

Time to ignore such, methinks.

In the original post I wrote:

"If one has a better approach to the topic, then replace this theory with that new one. Or -better yet - upgrade BASIC ETHICS,so that version 1.0 will become 2.0."

Thank you Immanuel for the constructive suggestions. I am still waiting for the replacements or the upgrades. The system is not so much about duties nor obligations, although it does delve into 'obligative norms' as it speaks to the classic so-called 'Socratic paradox' which asks Will people do the good once they know the good? Duty and obligation seem to be chief concern of ImmanuelCan. Everyone is free to ignore ethics or to comply with it. Those who are wise will choose to be ethical. The rest will pay some kind of price. The system explains it, what being ethical means, and what are the benefits.

BASIC ETHICS is Part Five of the Unified Theory of Ethics. The four earlier parts, as you recall, discussed many, many topics relevant to everyday life. I could list them but then if I did that I would go on too long.

prof wrote:If one has a better approach to the topic, then replace this theory with that new one.

I got a better approach, please delete it all, it has nothing to do with ethics, everything are random nonsens something a child could have made up.

What you have written does not belong in a philsophy forum, and specially not suited as an educational founding.

Okay, everyone - all Readers and Members here at Philosophy Now forums

You decide. After reading over M. C. Katz - BASIC ETHICS: A systematic approach - a description of which was given in the second post above - you decide whether the essay is relevant to ethics and morality. Does it have application to everyday practical life? Is it only written for professors of moral philosophy or can a college-educated layman get something of value out of it? Here is a link to it:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf

To speak to the primary concern of ImmanuelCan I wrote an entire post, initiating a new thread in his honor It argued as to why (the proposed new) Ethics is necessary. Later, I changed the caption slightly, but it is still about necessity (which is what he cared about.) You will find it here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12194

That post could perhaps serve as an Introduction statement for BASIC ETHICS, or as a Preface. It is, however, not an Abstract or summary of the document.

I'd like to hear your intelligent comments.