Philosophy Now Forum

Let’s introduce some method into ethics – into ethical theory - thus perhaps attempting to make ethics into a bit more-relevant knowledge. Let’s actually do some philosophy here. I’m enlisting your cooperation in this project: it’s an open-source endeavor. The entire history of ideas leads up to it; I make no claim to originality here.

Ethics can focus on the moral agent or on the moral situation. The moral agent is a man or woman – or an in-between; let us here refer to this as the individual.

Ben, in Australia, Ben contributed this: "The optimum state for one's survival, flourishing and well-being, is to have social interaction. In order to create, promote and sustain a healthy society at its optimum, it is necessary to will for, and to work for, not only one's personal health but also for the health of one's community and one's environment.

Those who will to harm others in their community are engaging in unhealthy and irrational behavior if their objective is survival, flourishing and well-being.

Those who have a deep understanding of and strong foundation for their objective are in a better position to realize their objective - to succeed - due to their ability to rationally approach it.

Without understanding and a strong foundation, whilst one's objective may be applauded, s/he does not have the tools necessary to succeed."

The individual has a self-concept. Every concept has (at least) three components: a designator, a meaning, and an application. In the case of the self-concept, the designator is the person’s proper name. The meaning is the individual’s self-image (self-identity, value-structure, principles, conscience, etc.) The application is the actual physical body, the capacities, and the conduct of the individual. This is a material aspect of the ethical situation.

Morality is here defined as a match (to some degree) between the material aspects and the self-image, when the self-image (the “Self”) is an ethical one, an enlightened one …that is to say, an empathic and compassionate one.

If the individual were a computer, to use an analogy, the self-image would be the software and the material aspects would be the hardware. Both need each other to function at all. The body needs the brain, and it needs health. A healthy brain will be a normal one.

Everyone - with very few exceptions - whether they will admit it or not, cares - at least for themselves. {They may do it in a disguised way which looks exactly like heroism or self-sacrifice or martyrdom.} Once one has figured out his/her true self-interest one does not care for oneself alone: one has a degree of caring for others. [See the discussion of this in Ethical Adventures: Topics of Moral Significance, by M. C. Katz, pp. 13-14.] http://tinyurl.com/38zfrh7

Self-concern is based upon human biology. We note that even a baby cries when it wants something for itself. Later, with maturation, ethical development may take place - and occasionally we get the wunderkind, a child that has been abused or neglected, and still turns out well. With ethical development the individual shows his capacity for empathy, kindness and compassion. Now we see Ethical principle applied.

In the sense that every human individual is an expression of human biology, in that sense it is "a universal aim." Its being "universal" in no way undermines an appreciation of cultural diversity, nor does it recommend a “one size fits all” ethics. In fact, the Hartman/Katz ethical theory emphasizes, and encourages the practice of, individuality, autonomy, and freedom.
[A sketch of some highlights in the R. S. Hartman biography are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Hartman ]

Let’s briefly analyze the term “freedom” which is one of the terms of Ethics, a coherent discipline providing relevant knowledge. We shall employ the tools of Formal Axiology, including its dimensions of value, S, E, and I, for this analysis:
Systemic freedom is the freedom to think and be moral.

Extrinsic freedom means freedom to move around, to move the limbs of the body, to have mobility, to travel, to relocate, etc.

Intrinsic freedom is freedom of conscience. This aspect of the Self was originally emphasized by the Intuitionists, such as Grotius and Pufendorf toward the end of the 16th-century. The conscience itself can be analyzed into the R-Conscience and the D-Conscience, that is, into the Reflective conscience and the Directive conscience. You will find the details about this HERE: http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ETHICS.pdf - pp. 7-13.

If one wants to flourish, ethics is a necessity!
But just as most people are ignorant about the latest findings in Cosmology, or Microbiology, they are ignorant of Ethics, and the virtuous cycle: how I-value leads to better S, and how better S leads to more effective action and production (E-value); and how better E results in more and better I-value.

What is 'better S'? "S" stands for Systemic-value. It means: more efficiency [which is doing more with less time, energy, resources], and better norms, rules, and systems.

Better E is more-effective practices, that is, practices which contribute to more well-being for more or the world's people.

Better I means more caring and sharing, more harmony and kindness, happier people.


A normal individual is increasingly moral in these respects: he or she is grateful in attitude, is reliable, and is truthful, generous, and is even at times - in some sense - heroic. This is how one grows in morality.


Well, I have given you enough to chew on. I’d love to hear your upgrades and improvements, comments, and questions. Please be constructive in your observations, as the point here is to construct a better ethical theory.

I see no gaps or flaws. Looks like a sound skeleton.

Moreover, I suspect most people already know this, if only from the bedtime prayers of toddlerhood, or the golden rule, or the example of a cohesive family, or vague memories from elementary school of what the US constitution says. That`s the base and model of all social organization; the base and model of all legal and moral systems.

When the social unit grows too big (more than 300 members) for each individual to have kinship ties and interaction with every other individual, it becomes possible for some individuals to take more than their share, and then those rogue individuals start bending the rules to their own advantage. Before you know it (as soon as three or four generations) the rogues are running the show. From that point onward, the whole of ethical endeavour is tied up in damage-control: how to mitigate the depredations of the rogues.

what your saying skip is what jesus was saying 2 thouthand years ago.

Sure, and Socrates before him and all mothers, including Lucy, probably told their children back to the beginning of socially organized animals.

http://web.cs.dal.ca/~johnston/poetry/island.html

You can't survive on your own (at least not until the others of your kind have nurtured and protected and trained you out of dependent minority) so you must contribute to, and partake of, the commonweal.
Every subsequent philosophy, law, moral code, protocol and etiquette is built around the need to protect the cohesion of the group and limit the harm that sociopaths can do. Not all bodies of law, etc. are equally effective or stable. (The vast majority are neither.)

It's a fine balance: every individual's life is a constant state of negotiation and/or contention between his own interest, the interest of each individual with whom he interacts and the interest of group as a whole. The balance is further complicated by disagreement as to the nature and manifestations of all those interests.

Skip wrote:I see no gaps or flaws. Looks like a sound skeleton.

Moreover, I suspect most people already know thi.s..

When the social unit grows too big (more than 300 members) for each individual to have kinship ties and interaction with every other individual, it becomes possible for some individuals to take more than their share, and then those rogue individuals start bending the rules to their own advantage. Before you know it (as soon as three or four generations) the rogues are running the show. From that point onward, the whole of ethical endeavour is tied up in damage-control: how to mitigate the depredations of the rogues.

Greetings, Skip

You say you "see no gaps or flaws. Looks like a sound skeleton." Thank you. However, there may be a flaw that creeps in here or there. It can be shown, in the Calculus of Value, that every system has imperfections within it. [And I note that in every book I write typos show up after it is electronically-published as a pdf file.]

If you have read, and studied, the latest of my scribbles, BASIC ETHICS (2014) http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz then you noticed some points that "most people" are probably ignorant about, namely, the S, E, and I value dimensions - and their wide applicability to Ethics, the discipline. If, once they are educated to it in primary school, they then were mindful of the Central Question of Life and Success alluded to in those pages, I am confident we would be living in a more-ethical world, one with a high degree of morality and integrity present - and many fewer rogues.

Skip, your third paragraph is profound. Systems Theory, when it employs the tools available from Complexity Theory, concludes much the same. It amounts to "small is beautiful" when it comes to political units that can be efficiently governed to produce the optimum value for its citizens.

I live in a very-well governed suburb of Chicago, one that structures itself as a village. It is quite responsive to its inhabitants needs, is constantly upgrading itself, and seems to have all the conveniences and a very low crime rate. It has a very wide diversity of cultures represented, but it is all within a unity.

It is likely that the U.S. empire has become top-heavy and our civilization is in decline, going through the same stages as the last days of the Roman Empire. Yet I'm an optimist, and hope that somehow we in the USA will pull through, we will come to our senses, organize and mobilize for ethical objectives, vote in people with a genuine sense of Ethics, and resume the progress we saw under the New Deal and the 'War on Poverty.' We need a rapid conversion to the use of renewable, clean green energy (among other policy goals). Maybe, just maybe, we can reduce some of the inequality gap, regain a functional Congress, and be a shining example to the world.

Cultures evolve in an ethical direction very slowly {more like a dimmer switch than an on-off switch. Yet every now and then something occurs that accelerates progress,, such as the invention of the telephone, the labor movement, the civil rights movement, the world-wide web, wireless transmission, the smart-phone, axiogenics, etc. These are all what I call 'ethical technologies' for they bring us closer to a quality life for one and all - fulfilling our ultimate ethical purpose.

I live in a very-well governed suburb of Chicago, one that structures itself as a village. It is quite responsive to its inhabitants needs, is constantly upgrading itself, and seems to have all the conveniences and a very low crime rate. It has a very wide diversity of cultures represented, but it is all within a unity.

It is likely that the U.S. empire has become top-heavy and our civilization is in decline, going through the same stages as the last days of the Roman Empire. Yet I'm an optimist, and hope that somehow we in the USA will pull through, we will come to our senses, organize and mobilize for ethical objectives, vote in people with a genuine sense of Ethics, and resume the progress we saw under the New Deal and the 'War on Poverty.' We need a rapid conversion to the use of renewable, clean green energy (among other policy goals). Maybe, just maybe, we can reduce some of the inequality gap, regain a functional Congress, and be a shining example to the world.

So, optimism and hope for a brighter future; great. And to achieve that we need a good Ethical theory, is this what your well-governed Chicago suburb is based on?

I find it intriguing that last night I watched a clip on a frozen Chicago, I refer to it in my 'Hope is...' thread, but here it is again:

I was astounded by this short 3.29 min video:
A portrait of Chicago by Jon Lowenstein.
http://www.channel4.com/news/chicago-po ... n-portrait

…in combination with the extreme cold and the unusually high levels of social violence in the community, means that we are facing some real challenges to social stability. The maintenance of high quality businesses, city services, decent housing and social wellness are the cornerstones of a healthy community.
What always amazes me about this community though is how resilient the residents are. They don't stop because the supermarket closes. As you see in the piece, people find a way to go on.
My goal with this story and the ongoing chronicling of life on the South Side is to give a different view of life in a marginalized community. I hope that movies like this and my @jonlowenstein instagram feed will help people to better understand what daily life is truly like here on Chicago's South Side and in communities like it all over the United States and the world.

At the risk of changing the subject, in the original post I mentioned a document with the title BASIC ETHICS. In that booklet it posits the concept that better ethical theories will result in the design of "ethical technologies," and tells how these help to bring an ethical world closer. Some examples were given.

Now I have come upon a book which reports on many other such technological developments including some of which I was not previously aware. I'd be remiss if I didn't call this new publication to your attention. William D. Eggers & Paul Macmillan, THE SOLUTION REVOLUTION (Cambridge, Harvard Business Review Press, 2013) is the book. You will find reviews of it here:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Solution-Revo ... ewpoints=1

Among many other ethical technologies, it reports on a site called Kaggle, which holds contests and thus makes a game out of competitions to come up with the best solutions to a problem. It is likely that reading this book will suggest some avenues of exploration as to how to do good while doing well. {There is money to be made while designing solutions that better the world.}

Comments?

prof wrote: You say you "see no gaps or flaws. Looks like a sound skeleton." Thank you. However, there may be a flaw that creeps in here or there. It can be shown, in the Calculus of Value, that every system has imperfections within it.

That doesn't mean i'll see them. I have to admit, somewhat reluctantly, that I no longer read with enough patience or attention, especially on the screen, which I find more difficult than paper: old eyes tire quickly; old brain grows stiff. But I will try.

....Skip, your third paragraph is profound. Systems Theory, when it employs the tools available from Complexity Theory, concludes much the same. It amounts to "small is beautiful" when it comes to political units that can be efficiently governed to produce the optimum value for its citizens.

I can't take credit: it's been pointed out by anthropologists (obvious, when you give it a minute) - and I've been dipping into a Jared Diamond book again, lunchtimes. But I am a strong believer in decentralization of just about everything (most especially, at the moment, energy.) People can manage their affairs quite well in small groups, where everyone gets to speak and has to listen in order to get another turn at speaking. Also, it's a lot harder to sneak a cookie from a plate with a dozen cookies on it than from a barrel of four thousand.

The single huge problem with teaching Ethics (or critical thinking, or logic or rhetoric or civics) is the same one as electoral reform: the only people with the power to change it are the ones who most benefit from the status quo. The very last thing they want is a citizenry that understands what needs doing and has the will to do it. (Because what most needs doing is the sociopaths away-with.)

...It is likely that the U.S. empire has become top-heavy and our civilization is in decline, going through the same stages as the last days of the Roman Empire.

They all have to. Empires - indeed, civilizations - are organisms and have a life cycle. Technology shortens the time each stage takes to complete, but they're still the same stages... right down to the advent of crazy Little Boots and Shrubs.

Yet I'm an optimist, and hope that somehow we in the USA will pull through, we will come to our senses, organize and mobilize for ethical objectives, vote in people with a genuine sense of Ethics, and resume the progress we saw under the New Deal and the 'War on Poverty.' We need a rapid conversion to the use of renewable, clean green energy (among other policy goals). Maybe, just maybe, we can reduce some of the inequality gap, regain a functional Congress, and be a shining example to the world.

None of that can happen under the current form of government. It's been co-opted by money - which has subsumed every function and agency of the social organization from nursery school to prison to death-bed. And the money-freaks are not going to relinquish control.

Cultures evolve in an ethical direction very slowly {more like a dimmer switch than an on-off switch. Yet every now and then something occurs that accelerates progress,, such as the invention of the telephone, the labor movement, the civil rights movement, the world-wide web, wireless transmission, the smart-phone, axiogenics, etc. These are all what I call 'ethical technologies' for they bring us closer to a quality life for one and all - fulfilling our ultimate ethical purpose.

I wouldn't put technologies and social movements in the same tool-box. In a money culture, all useful technologies are under the control of - and directed toward the further enrichment and empowerment of - the moneyed class*, while the labour unions, civil rights, gender rights and welfare movements were all arrayed against the controlling class. All that immense human energy and effort, just trying to undo some of the harm capitalism was, all that time, continuing to do, with the work of those very same people. Talk about a house divided against itself! Those movements have taken a beating over the last 30 years...
I am amazed sometimes how many idealists are still standing, howbeit with bloodied heads.
So, maybe your optimism isn't altogether misplaced.
Sorry, lost track of time. I'll be back.

*Yes, I see where some of them have been and are used subversively. (Poor old Bradley Manning!) One of the things I can't seem to get across to people is how YouTube proves the fundamental tenet of capitalism utterly wrong: Look how many people go to how much trouble to share their ideas and skills, with no thought of remuneration! People are not motivated to think, make art and invent things by money - that just gets in their way and complicates their lives. That whole edifice of capitalism is built on a lie and its continued existence depends on perpetuating the lie - implanting in it the heads of babies before they can think independently. (How sad is that?)

The hope I see is a little farther down the road and the road gets a lot rougher before it levels out again.

prof wrote:.... I'd be remiss if I didn't call this new publication to your attention. William D. Eggers & Paul Macmillan, THE SOLUTION REVOLUTION (Cambridge, Harvard Business Review Press, 2013) is the book. You will find reviews of it here:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Solution-Revo ... ewpoints=1

Among many other ethical technologies, it reports on a site called Kaggle, which holds contests and thus makes a game out of competitions to come up with the best solutions to a problem. It is likely that reading this book will suggest some avenues of exploration as to how to do good while doing well. {There is money to be made while designing solutions that better the world.}

Comments?

First, thanks for the book link, re 'How Business, Government and Social Enterprise are teaming up to solve society's toughest problems'. That sounds interesting.

Next, I would be grateful for an answer to my question about your successful 'village':

So, optimism and hope for a brighter future; great. And to achieve that we need a good Ethical theory, is this what your well-governed Chicago suburb is based on?

If this is an 'ideal model', then can it be applied to other areas in Chicago - see my linked video - which seem less than thriving. I really want to know; for one thing, because it seems that people are left helpless when the Big corporations decide to up and leave. It seems that the poor suburbs are left unsupported, despite previous investment of citizens' time, money and energy.

Can you describe the way your 'village' functions, socio-economically and politically, in more detail?

How sustainable is this model?

Right now, I see the benefits of smaller communities being more independent; however, everybody is interdependent - interests conflict. No matter what Great Ethical Theory is proposed, I don't see how it would work in practice.

The single huge problem with teaching Ethics (or critical thinking, or logic or rhetoric or civics) is the same one as electoral reform: the only people with the power to change it are the ones who most benefit from the status quo. The very last thing they want is a citizenry that understands what needs doing and has the will to do it. (Because what most needs doing is the sociopaths away-with.)

I understand what you are saying about electoral reform. However, you have lost me where you liken it to teaching Ethics. I'd welcome an explanation.

I would say that the problem with teaching Ethics is that is based on theory; but I really don't know what, when or how it is taught...except that there will probably be variations on a theme.

Perhaps you mean that, as in politics, there is a gap between what is proposed (for electoral reasons) and actual (poltical) practice on the ground.

The hope I see is a little farther down the road and the road gets a lot rougher before it levels out again.

Don't you need to have 'hope' built in from the start?

marjoramblues wrote:

prof wrote:.... I'd be remiss if I didn't call this new publication to your attention. William D. Eggers & Paul Macmillan, THE SOLUTION REVOLUTION (Cambridge, Harvard Business Review Press, 2013) is the book. You will find reviews of it here:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Solution-Revo ... ewpoints=1

Among many other ethical technologies, it reports on a site called Kaggle, which holds contests and thus makes a game out of competitions to come up with the best solutions to a problem. It is likely that reading this book will suggest some avenues of exploration as to how to do good while doing well. {There is money to be made while designing solutions that better the world.}

Comments?

First, thanks for the book link, re 'How Business, Government and Social Enterprise are teaming up to solve society's toughest problems'. That sounds interesting.

Next, I would be grateful for an answer to my question about your successful 'village':

So, optimism and hope for a brighter future; great. And to achieve that we need a good Ethical theory, is this what your well-governed Chicago suburb is based on?

If this is an 'ideal model', then can it be applied to other areas in Chicago - see my linked video - which seem less than thriving. I really want to know; for one thing, because it seems that people are left helpless when the Big corporations decide to up and leave. It seems that the poor suburbs are left unsupported, despite previous investment of citizens' time, money and energy.

Can you describe the way your 'village' functions, socio-economically and politically, in more detail?

How sustainable is this model?

Right now, I see the benefits of smaller communities being more independent; however, everybody is interdependent - interests conflict. No matter what Great Ethical Theory is proposed, I don't see how it would work in practice.

Hi, marjoramblues

My village functions. How it functions is not my field of expertise; I am ignorant when it comes to describing the ins-and-outs of it. You may wish to go to its homepage, contact its mayor's office for literature, visit it and do some political-science research. Its name is Skokie. It could be described as a 'bedroom community' for the great industrial city: Chicago. I don't know how sustainable the model is. You tell me. http://www.skokie.org/ Also http://skokienet.org/topic/aboutskokie

Yes, the South Side of Chicago has problems; though probably not as bad as Eritrea, Somalia, or the Congo Republic. Jesse Jackson, about 60 years ago, told me that he couldn't even form a credit union since the people she chose to work with did not have a sense of the value of cooperation, mutual-aid associations, etc., the way other cultural groups did have. [It may be that when you are SO poor you only think of your own immediate survival.] Koreans, Assyrians, Poles, Japanese, Nordics, Chinese easily form associations to care for one another , yet the children of slaves experience barriers at every turn, and lack that sense of social cohesion. I would like to be shown to be wrong about this, to see evidence that the NAACP is getting stronger. . And that other groups like it, and Operation Push, are gaining more in influence. There is a great shortage of community organizers.

You write: " No matter what Great Ethical Theory is proposed, I don't see how it would work in practice."

The theory provides concepts to life coaches, educators, therapists, parents, etc. for transmission to their clients, students, patients, children. The theory is grist for the mill of science-writers who popularize ideas for mass consumption in various forms of media ....mags, journals, zines, blogs, social-media, etc. These concepts when taken to heart produce more moral individuals who then conduct themselves in such ways as to contribute toward a more-ethical world than currently exists.

Educators influence what schools teach. Parents often have some influence in what their children will believe, what policies they will vote for, etc. It's all a gradual process but cultures do change, the prevailing ethos does change for the better over time, more people have become literate (though not yet numerate: able to do simple arithmetic), more people [with your help] will become educated - not just schooled, instructed or trained.

You may find it enlightening to read Alvin and Heidi Toffler - CREATING A NEW CIVILIZATION (Atlanta, Turner Publishing, Inc., 1995) 112 pp. ppbk. It even made a positive impression on Newt G, who often otherwise displays confusions.

Your questions seem to be more about applied ethics than about the theory itself.
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf
That's okay. Does that mean you have studied it, and that you like the theory?

marjoramblues wrote:
I understand what you are saying about electoral reform. However, you have lost me where you liken it to teaching Ethics. I'd welcome an explanation.

I would say that the problem with teaching Ethics is that is based on theory; but I really don't know what, when or how it is taught...except that there will probably be variations on a theme.

Perhaps you mean that, as in politics, there is a gap between what is proposed (for electoral reasons) and actual (poltical) practice on the ground.

Because the same people control the financing of all public services - including education and elections - they get to set the agenda. Since it`s corporate interests now, they`re going to veto anything in the schools that doesn`t contribute to an end product they want: graduates with job skills, a healthy awe of `job creators` and big, big student loan debts, so they can`t turn their noses up at whatever pittance they`re offered. So, they`re going to instruct their tame purse-string-holding officials to nix anything that can be characterized as abstruse, intellectual, esoteric, impractical, ideological, controversial or profound, on the grounds that it costs too much. Same way they scrap music and art, classics and theatrics.
Those interests want a nation of uncritical, consumers, with the attention span of fruit-flies, an unappeasable appetite for superficial gratification and an infinitely mutable vocabulary. They want the people divided into clearly-defined, easy-to-lead rival factions that can be riled up to violent hatred with a few pat phrases.

Children are capable of learning, and appreciating, all kinds of subject matter, including theory, if they`re not put off it by popular culture (which, not coincidentally, is also directed by and toward the same interests) even before they get into Grade 1. Western children are systematically brainwashed: kept immature, incompetent and self-centered, as long as possible.

Don't you need to have 'hope' built in from the start?

It already is. To live is to hope... even when we know better. What I see ahead is some very serious bad shit, which will almost certainly wipe out the civilizations we know. There are likely to be survivors and they will start something new, which I imagine will be similar to early human organization. Maybe they won't take the same wrong turnings again. Here is an interesting book: http://scatteradaptandremember.com/

What is the relationship between 'Building a good Ethical theory' and building, or re-building, human society?

I only ask this because prof suggested that my interest was geared more to applied ethics than theoretical ethics. Also Skip's response regarding the current agenda being set by corporate interests and 'divide and conquer' methodology.

They want the people divided into clearly-defined, easy-to-lead rival factions that can be riled up to violent hatred with a few pat phrases.

I get all the points about education and the need to open eyes and minds. However, what I don't see is how some Grand Ethical Theory can help.

Thanks, Skip, for yet another book link; seems intelligent and imaginative re societal management in the face of disaster.

{apologies to prof if this makes the thread go a bit awry; however, I think it worth exploring in light of your thriving village, the importance of community and its sustainabilty}

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/three- ... apocalypse
Three Things Humanity Needs to Do to Survive the Apocalypse – by Brian Merchant

"Economic inequality at the level that we're seeing it right now is totally unsustainable, and it's fatal. Literally fatal," Newitz says. "I think we can all kind of agree on that."
That's because inequality at great scale both weakens populations and renders them susceptible to disease and starvation and inspires violent conflict. Millions died during the Black Death, for instance, because the poor were herded together, and the disease was easily transmissible. And oppressive economic and social policies forced the Irish to convert farmland to cash crops during the potato famine. And this sort of societal mismanagement is still going on, of course…
…everyone's idea of a human end game is bound to be different. So the biggest takeaway from all this apocalypse talk is that we definitely need to be talking. Not just watching apocalypse porn and reading the perpetually grim news and hoping for the best, but incorporating long-term human sustainability into our conversations, our planning, our governance.

"What we really need to be doing is not looking at lists, but be actively planning ahead for the future on a small scale, like in our cities, our city blocks."
Mass extinction may spread across the globe, but survival starts at home.

Mass extinction...may not be uppermost in minds when dealing with the problems of Now.
Increasing poor/rich divide; distrust in politicians and police.
Recently, we heard the slogan 'No Justice, No Peace' shouted in anger against a jury's decision as to the lawful killing of a known criminal who apparently threw his gun away before police killed him.
A major incident in the UK; but apparently more common in the US.

Anyway, I enjoyed the ambiguity of it. It carried a threat that there would be trouble ahead (protests); however, it was manipulated into 'we won't have peace until we get a fair verdict'.
As a stand-alone slogan, it speaks volumes. I wonder who thought it up...a philosophical ethicist?

The theory provides concepts to life coaches, educators, therapists, parents, etc. for transmission to their clients, students, patients, children. The theory is grist for the mill of science-writers who popularize ideas for mass consumption in various forms of media ....mags, journals, zines, blogs, social-media, etc. These concepts when taken to heart produce more moral individuals who then conduct themselves in such ways as to contribute toward a more-ethical world than currently exists

Theoretical concepts do not necessarily produce moral individuals who then contribute towards a more ethical world.

If the idea is to encourage more awareness in how to flourish as an individual, or society, in a way that does not hurt others, then I suggest that educators need to get real.