Philosophy Now Forum

Why not squeeze all the value we can out of life? Isn’t it rational, practical and wise to aim to maximize value? [“Value” is a concept to be differentiated from “disvalue.” The latter is a mix-up of values, an incompatibility, and is worth only a tiny fraction. It’s ymbol has a minus sign in it.] Let’s agree, for the sake of argument, that this increase in value ought to be a guiding principle for good living. Living the good life is what Ethics is about. It is also called ‘flourishing.’ It includes happiness, practical wisdom, liberty, creative self-expression, integrity, and good will toward all. It means a sense of responsibility, a sense of community, and an aim to implement opportunity for everyone. Why give special privileges to some – considered to be an ‘elite’ – while others are denied? You are just as special as I, and I as you. Who needs elites ?

Intrinsic-value, by definition and by observation, is a higher value than the other two basic value dimensions. (In the following paragraphs t I will explain further what is meant here by “I-value.”) As we have shown, to aim for the highest values in life is the way to maximize value. Hence a rational individual would go in the direction of Intrinsic-value. To aim for I-value, for harmony in human relations, rather than be quarrelsome, is in our best self-interest and therefore this is what a rational person would be obliged to do.

A plant needs strong roots to flourish. In the same way, a person needs a good character, one that exhibits honesty, fairness, responsibility, and compassion. All these character traits result from a capacity to I-value both oneself and others.

The moral qualities mentioned, as well as empathy, reflect the individual’s capacity to I-value, to engage in the process of Intrinsic valuation. What R. S. Hartman spoke of as I-value is quite similar to what Edmund Husserl called Intentionality, and what Henri Bergson called "compenetration." It is full involvement, dedication, concentrated focus, giving of oneself to what is being valued. It has been called “getting in the Flow.” It is showing respect. It is the formation of a continuum between the valuer and what he is valuing. The many becomes one; the diversity becomes a unity while still maintaining its diverse and unique identity. This having an intense interest often results in finding so many qualities in what you are valuing that you cannot possibly count them. You see the situation as a whole.

If it is a person you are I-valuing you see that person as interesting, as having a story to tell, as deep and complex; and you have entered the realm of Ethics. For this is the ethical perspective.

An owl needs strong eyes to enable it to see in the dark because it hunts for food at night. That is how owls survive, how the owl species can flourish. An owl with weak eyes is defective.
If ethics is about harmonious relationships and about how we are obligated to others even when tempted not to be, then anyone who does not strive to have a good character, to add value, to situations, to make things better, to uplift or empower others, to volunteer ‘service with a smile’, to perform an act of kindness, etc., and to thereby in his own way enhance the human species is (in a sense) like an owl without night vision, or a plant that lacks strong roots. There is something missing; there is a failure to achieve what Philippa Foot called “Natural goodness.” Such an immoral individual keeps us all from fully flourishing. We all do better if we all do better.

According to Prof. Foot, a human being who conducts himself immorally has a defect relevant to his species. No one likes to be considered to be ‘defective.’ People hearing this react negatively, and rather emotionally, toward Dr. Foot.

Comments? Philosophical reflections you may have had along these lines?

What's up with this compulsive behaviour? I think this is the 4th time you make a thread about the exact same thing.

Everybody are well aware of basic ethics, how to act unselfish, do good, not harm, etc, but what you need to write about is the motivaltional factor how to implement all this into society.

Do you just make new threads to avoid negative comments?

prof, why have you not commented on this question? You are the resident expert on ethics. Why have you not identified the philosopher who responded to the question existentially?

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12304

tbieter wrote:You are the resident expert on ethics.

LOL?

HexHammer wrote:What's up with this compulsive behaviour? ...

Everybody are well aware of basic ethics, how to act unselfish, do good, not harm, etc, but what you need to write about is the motivaltional factor how to implement all this into society.
.

Greeting Hex,

If you are so well aware of how harming is unethical, then why, Hex, do you frequently say things that hurt people? Doesn't that harm?

For example, you are quick to accuse a writer of babbling (when it is perhaps the case that you cannot understand what is written, or fail to read it all the way through in order to comprehend it.) You accuse me of compulsiveness, of avoidance, spamming etc.
You never seem to see your own shortcomings, only to attack, with trash talk. Having a foul mouth gets a person nowhere, and it certainly is not practicing ethics, is it?

Thanks for the constructive suggestions in this current post. The fact is, in BASIC ETHICS there are ideas devoted to motivation [- such as education and coaching to teach oneself and others to ask themselves The Central Question of Life, be mindful of it, and form the habit of it. It is discussed there, albeit briefly - so as to keep the book relatively short. Also, in a recent post to Majoram I recommended he teach two, and impart to each that they also find ways to each teach two.] When - in BASIC ETHICS - three kinds of Norms were presented, the third norm was totally about motivation to implement one's Ethical principles. You didn't bother to read and understand it. Until an individual gets his own family to be harmonious (I-valuing one another) we will not achieve a harmonious society. The social structure will not be ethical if the individuals in it they don't have their moral values in sharp-enough focus - or even worse, if they don't know the principles.
You say they already do. I say they are not clear about them; much value confusion prevails. I see the proof all around. Some place systemic values above the intrinsic ones. Some give priority to the extrinsic when it is appropriate to express the Intrinsic values. People feel helpless when they could feel their power. People don't protest a wrong when they see one. People don't bother to vote. They don't practice what they believe. Does that especially apply to you?? You know if it does.

What you are asking for belongs at the forum Applied Ethics, not here at the Ethics Theory site It seems to me, although I may be wrong, that at an Ethical Theory forum it is okay to talk theory. Once, at another Forum, I posted a thread with the title Resolving a Moral Dilemma from Real Life, and only 10 people were interested enough to even open it up to read it. Yet that is the main thing you think ethics is all about.. The evidence shows that giving a real issue, and showing ways to figure out a solution, is not what interests most students of ethics. Calling them 'stupid' is futile. Your usual approach only turns people off. I am glad to see that you are now improving.

prof wrote:If you are so well aware of how harming is unethical, then why, Hex, do you frequently say things that hurt people? Doesn't that harm?

For example, you are quick to accuse a writer of babbling (when it is perhaps the case that you cannot understand what is written, or fail to read it all the way through in order to comprehend it.) You accuse me of compulsiveness, of avoidance, spamming etc.
You never seem to see your own shortcomings, only to attack, with trash talk. Having a foul mouth gets a person nowhere, and it certainly is not practicing ethics, is it?

Unfortunaly you are wrong, I might be brutal in my way of communicating with you and others, but it's "good" to point out the shortcomings in your writings.

You might ask youself why your publications were taken down from Wiki? ..because they'r useless! That's the tragic truth that you refuses to realize.

On other fora I've actually tried to help you, pointing out how you confuse "good" of usefullness, practical, and ethical and moral in 1 huge mashed pile, yet you didn't take it to heart, but only disregarded it because you didn't comprehend it.

HexHammer wrote:
You might ask youself why your publications were taken down from Wiki? ..because they'r useless! That's the tragic truth that you refuses to realize.....

This is false-to-fact. My publications were not taken down: my bio was - because I do not have notability. The main reason I do not is that I don't seek it. It's only an ego-trip. I don't need that recognition. You will note the use of nicknames, at these forums which provide anonymity. I want the construction of a 21st Century ethical theory to be an Open-source project - like the Firefox browser is, for example. I don't know who created that marvelous program, and don't need to know in order to enjoy it. Mozilla is a global community.

It's not about me.

Obviously, I did not write my books for you as the audience. I have received a warm reception from some readers who showered compliments, and found much they liked and learned in the documents. I wrote the books for them.



As a professor of Moral Philosophy, I am glad to learn from any source, so I ask you to teach me now. How do you differentiate "practical" from "useful"? What are your definitions of "ethical" aand of "moral"? I do not want to be in a state of confusion - so please set me straight.

It is not good to be brutal - in any way. And while it is good to point out shortcomings, it is even better for a reader to find, in some text one reads, concepts he can use: to build with, to enhance his own value structure, to improve his understanding of the universe. Use to integrate and synthesize his own ideas, to enhance and upgrade his prior comprehension. A wise individual will look for the highlights, for a quote he can use later, or a concept that acquaints him with a new way of looking at things ...another perspective, one he didn't have before the communication. That is the constructive approach to reading or listening or viewing. That is of higher value than just picking apart another's efforts - as smart alecks do to show off.

To me,, philosophy is not like a fencing event where you try to stab someone in the heart, nor show some fancy sword-play, disarming an opponent of his rapier. It is not arguing for argument's sake.
It is, instead, the clarification and analysis of vague concepts, sharpening them up, making them more exact and precise.

To you, and to fiveredapples, under whom you may have studied, it is a battle, with a victor ...the victor, you may hold, is the one who, in effect, says: "Touche. I stabbed you in the heart !"

tbieter wrote:prof, why have you not commented on this question? You are the resident expert on ethics. Why have you not identified the philosopher who responded to the question existentially?

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12304

Hi, thieter

Thank you for calling this to my attention. I have now gone to the site where you posted a thread, and I responded to the best of my ability.

Questions are good. Beware of either/or thinking, however. Those who think in 'black-or-white' are in danger of missing all the shades, tints, hues, and colors of life. People are infinitely complex, changeable, dynamic organisms. The situations they get into have many overtones and value dimensions. Valuation combines emotion with conception, feeling with cognition. We are engaged in this process during all our waking hours. And "suffer" - as in "suffer evil" is an ambiguous concept. Specify exactly what you mean in order to optimize communication.

That seems very odd! If it's truly not about you, then why not unselfishly let other people have a share of your hard work, so that the world may learn about this magnificent ethics that you have created, and put it on Wiki?

I never really see any proper list of crediting people from contributing to your work, which worries me about your honesty.


viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12019&start=105#p157817

prof wrote:Even I, a professor Moral Philosophy

So, which university are you connected to? Just to ask the unanswerd question again.



viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12209&start=60#p158017

HexHammer wrote:

prof wrote: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.

Fine let's dicuss this then and make a long haul of it.

- it's pure nonsens that "The moral agent is a man or woman - or an in-between", to pour out toxic chemicals are not relating to any sex, and can't be seen as a person. Toxic chemichals will often make unmichigating damage to the enviroment.

- Ben, in Australia is utterly wrong. It's very damageing for a healthy community to make wealthy snobs to mingle with the poor, if one forces the different societies to mingle then they'll just move, and the community loses vast amount of good taxmoney.

- so, if parents wants to harm child molestors, it's "unhealthy and irrational behavior", no it's very rational and logically.

------------

Everything in OP is pure nonsens and babble, nothing is actually useful and will do mor harm than good to promote as actual ethics.

It should be removed as this is a total disasterous emberresment to the site.

I stop here to rip apart your OP since you will just ignore everything you say and dismiss it as being wrong.

My answers to your posts always seems to go unanswerd for some reason when they really hit a nerve, or am I mistaken, why I won't really bother give a good analytic answer this time, only if you satisfyingly answer all my questions will I help you.

HexHammer wrote: why not unselfishly let other people have a share of your hard work, so that the world may learn about this magnificent ethics that you have created, and put it on Wiki?

I never really see any proper list of crediting people from contributing to your work, which worries me about your honesty....

...So, which university are you connected to? Just to ask the unanswerd question again.

prof wrote:Ethics can focus on the moral agent or on the moral situation. ..let us here refer to [the moral agent] as the individual....

...Ben, in Australia contributed this: "The optimum state for one's survival, flourishing and well-being, is to have social interaction...."

"...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."

Fine let's dicuss this then and make a long haul of it.

- it's pure nonsens that "The moral agent is a man or woman ... Toxic chemichals will often make unmichigating (sic.) damage to the enviroment.

- Ben, in Australia is utterly wrong. It's very damageing for a healthy community to make wealthy snobs to mingle with the poor, if one forces the different societies to mingle then they'll just move, and the community loses vast amount of good taxmoney.

- so, if parents wants to harm child molestors, it's "unhealthy and irrational behavior", no it's very rational and logically.

------------

Everything in OP is pure nonsens and babble...and will do mor harm than good to promote as actual ethics.

It should be removed as this is a total disasterous emberresment to the site.

I ... rip apart your OP

....My answers to your posts always seems to go unanswerd for some reason .....

Thank you for your helpful suggestion about posting on Wiki. I already, for over 8 years, have two topics on Wiki that I initiated. Perhaps another entry would prove to be of interest. Is anyone here on the Wikipedia Editorial Board as a volunteer? If so, send me a P.M.

You ask about crediting. In the very first lines of BASIC ETHICS gratitude is expressed and credit given to the brilliant philosopher from who I got most of the concepts. I make no claims of originality; I have said many times that it seems to me that there are no original ideas.

I believe in the o.p. I gave credit to Husserl for his concept "Intentionality," and to Philippa Foot for her concept “Natural goodness.” {A buddy of mine, the late M. Ashley-Montagu, of Princeton, gave extensive footnotes in his books; while another friend, Wayne Dyer, gave none in his first book, Your Erroneous Zones. Al Ellis told me he felt ripped off, that Dyer was stealing his ideas. I mentioned it to Wayne, and he said: Ellis takes from everywhere; he calls it "research."}

Even in the quote you offer, I give credit to Ben. I agree largely with the points he makes; that is why I present his views. He is especially right about the moral principle Do no harm. Parents of a molested child had best let the Justice system - with all its present flaws - handle it. Vengeance is the lowest form of justice, as I demonstrate in Adventures in Ethics. It is highly unethical for the parents to harm anyone, although I understand how they feel. When I was a juvenile I too had thoughts of "getting even," of revenge against 'enemies' - I still love fairness, equity, and other forms of justice. I still have profound empathy for victims of such molestation. However, I now am keenly aware that rehab and reconciliation are the way to go, for a better world, an ethical society. Let's devote more public money to rehabilitation. See the book by Dr Karl Menninger, THE CRIME OF PUNISHMENT, which is a classic in the field of criminal justice.

There are reasons why your posts go unanswered. You turn off discussants at a forum, who would otherwise answer, when you insult them, and show gross disrespect. How many 83-year-old individuals do you know who would put up with this? Who needs it?!!: Some of your wrds: "everything pure nonsense," "nothing but babble", "spam," "embarrassment"

Reflect on your words. Think about what you have written. Then think about it some more. Then guess why someone would ignore a post of yours. Venture a guess.


“O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!"

― Robert Burns,
The Complete Poetical Works of Robert Burns

I would like to see a link to these Wiki sites, please.

..and which university?

No, even when I speak very nice, my posts to you usually go unanswerd the same goes for other people who also speaks very nicely, but none the less it's nice to get an answer tho it lacks here and there.

I'm sorry that you can't handle the tragic truth which I provide to you, if your ethics actually had some value I woldn't be so harsh on you, simple logic.
Here you promote some completely useless nonsens as having educational vale, when it has nothing to offer! viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12179

Then you ask others to help you to make some actual useful ethics. We might have helped you if there was something to build upon.
You kept insisting that it was ver 1.0 just needed to be upgraded to ver 2.0, if it was truly ver 1.0 there would be something useful, but there was nothing.

For some reason you keep making entirely new writings, maybe in the hope that this time these random words will form something useful.

You need to realize that you are not suited to write ethics, and it's a fool's errand when theres already well written ethics out there, and even more weird that you want others to help you with it.

Greetings, Hex

There is a gap here and I'm surprised that you can't see it. Dr. Hartman defined Ethics, in his magnum opus, THE STRUCTURE OF VALUE, as the department of inquiry that arises when individuals are Intrinsically valued. I saw the sense in that and am carrying it forward. You, in contrast, define ethics as being about finding a resolution to a dilemma that arises in the course of living. Rush Kidder has written about that in a book I have plugged time and again, namely, HOW GOOD PEOPLE MAKE TOUGH CHOICES.

In my latest essay, BASIC ETHICS, the reader is presented with the tools that Kidder employed to analyze dilemmas; and I managed to incorporate them, include them, under my frame of reference. I showed how they fit, logically, under the value-scientific umbrella. This is called finding common ground. Also an act of synthesis.

We each define ethics differently. I see dilemmas as a subset of the broad field of Ethics. You INSIST that "it's your way or the highway " Your position seems a bit rigid to me, but I hope I am wrong about this, and that you are not such a dogmatist after all. I hope and trust we can find common ground between us. You are no fool.

If I understand, you believe that, as you put it, "theres already well written ethics out there." And I request of you to show us where it is, and to explain why it is so adequate that we don't need a new Ethics discipline, a new set of 'natural-logical laws of conduct.' You seem quite content with the status quo; you seem to be saying "We have no grievous problems. We need no change." I, on the other hand, believe in progress, in being "the change I want to see" to quote Gandhi.

I am respectful because I want everybody in the world to (eventually) be civil, and respectful. ..so I'm setting an example. [I think we both agree that example speaks louder than words.] I am anti-war, yet I see people talking "war" and engaging in war all around me. I believe the wide gap between rich and poor will ruin an economy, hence I would like to lessen extreme poverty. I am confident that the spread of Ethics will relieve that situation. And I see how it will work. Without vision, said Lincoln, the people perish. I can envision a better world. You seem to be saying, "Don't rock the boat while I'm comfortable." You want to return to a past that never was as rosy as you think it was.

Wouldn't it be nice if people could disagree without being disagreeable? I don't call your positions "useless". But if you can't see the other fellow's perspective you feel obliged to put him down (and/or his work down) with epithets, disparagements, and smears. Yes,when you are nice, and not quarrelsome, people answer. They respond to you unless it is none of your business!

I really, sincerely, would like to know how you could help in the project to round out Ethics, upgrade it, by adding a section on moral dilemmas - with folksy illustrations. But read Rushworth Kidder's book first, for he offers some juicy examples of stark dilemmas - and of how they were finally resolved. http://www.amazon.com/Good-People-Make- ... rth+kidder

I would argue that if people, normal people, knew keenly-enough the benefits of being good, in a moral sense of 'good', and if they knew HOW to be good,they would live it. If they saw clearly what the concepts being good, and doing good, means, they would do it. In this stance I am agreeing with Socrates. {See the so-called "Socratic Paradox."} I believe that most of the bad conduct in the world is due to ignorance.

Greetings, Hex

There is a gap here and I'm surprised that you can't see it. Dr. Hartman defined Ethics, in his magnum opus, THE STRUCTURE OF VALUE, as the department of inquiry that arises when individuals are Intrinsically valued. I saw the sense in that and am carrying it forward. You, in contrast, define ethics as being about finding a resolution to a dilemma that arises in the course of living. Rush Kidder has written about that in a book I have plugged time and again, namely, HOW GOOD PEOPLE MAKE TOUGH CHOICES.

In my latest essay, BASIC ETHICS, the reader is presented with the tools that Kidder employed to analyze dilemmas; and I managed to incorporate them, include them, under my frame of reference. I showed how they fit, logically, under the value-scientific umbrella. This is called finding common ground. Also an act of synthesis.

We each define ethics differently. I see dilemmas as a subset of the broad field of Ethics. You INSIST that "it's your way or the highway " Your position seems a bit rigid to me, but I hope I am wrong about this, and that you are not such a dogmatist after all. I hope and trust we can find common ground between us. You are no fool.

If I understand, you believe that, as you put it, "theres already well written ethics out there." And I request of you to show us where it is, and to explain why it is so adequate that we don't need a new Ethics discipline, a new set of 'natural-logical laws of conduct.' You seem quite content with the status quo; you seem to be saying "We have no grievous problems. We need no change." I, on the other hand, believe in progress, in being "the change I want to see" to quote Gandhi.

I am respectful because I want everybody in the world to (eventually) be civil, and respectful. ..so I'm setting an example. [I think we both agree that example speaks louder than words.] I am anti-war, yet I see people talking "war" and engaging in war all around me. I believe the wide gap between rich and poor will ruin an economy, hence I would like to lessen extreme poverty. I am confident that the spread of Ethics will relieve that situation. And I see how it will work. Without vision, said Lincoln, the people perish. I can envision a better world. You seem to be saying, "Don't rock the boat while I'm comfortable." You want to return to a past that never was as rosy as you think it was.

Wouldn't it be nice if people could disagree without being disagreeable? I don't call your positions "useless". But if you can't see the other fellow's perspective you feel obliged to put him down (and/or his work down) with epithets, disparagements, and smears. Yes,when you are nice, and not quarrelsome, people answer. They respond to you unless it is none of your business!

I really, sincerely, would like to know how you could help in the project to round out Ethics, upgrade it, by adding a section on moral dilemmas - with folksy illustrations. But read Rushworth Kidder's book first, for he offers some juicy examples of stark dilemmas - and of how they were finally resolved. http://www.amazon.com/Good-People-Make- ... rth+kidder

I would argue that if people, normal people, knew keenly-enough the benefits of being good, in a moral sense of 'good', and if they knew HOW to be good,they would live it. If they saw clearly what the concepts being good, and doing good, means, they would do it. In this stance I am agreeing with Socrates. {See the so-called "Socratic Paradox."} I believe that most of the bad conduct in the world is due to ignorance.

[No message]

Wow! That was 1 long dodegeing the questions posed, let me ask them again.

HexHammer wrote:I would like to see a link to these Wiki sites, please.

..and which university?

No, even when I speak very nice, my posts to you usually go unanswerd the same goes for other people who also speaks very nicely, but none the less it's nice to get an answer tho it lacks here and there.

I'm sorry that you can't handle the tragic truth which I provide to you, if your ethics actually had some value I woldn't be so harsh on you, simple logic.
Here you promote some completely useless nonsens as having educational vale, when it has nothing to offer! viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12179

Then you ask others to help you to make some actual useful ethics. We might have helped you if there was something to build upon.
You kept insisting that it was ver 1.0 just needed to be upgraded to ver 2.0, if it was truly ver 1.0 there would be something useful, but there was nothing.

For some reason you keep making entirely new writings, maybe in the hope that this time these random words will form something useful.

You need to realize that you are not suited to write ethics, and it's a fool's errand when theres already well written ethics out there, and even more weird that you want others to help you with it.