Philosophy Now Forum

Here -- leading up to a survey -- are some reflections that occurred to me lately:

To be logical is to be fitting.

To be ethical is to be in balance.

Justice is a state of balance, and Justice is a branch of Ethics. Social Justice is a branch of Justice. Another subdivision of Justice is Remedial Justice. It decides on fines and punishments - that, ideally, fit the crime.

Ethics, as a theory, ought to be logical; it ought to make sense. ....which brings me to the survey question:

Does the theory presented in M.C. Katz - BASIC ETHICS http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz [this link is to a trustworthy source] ...does that theory make sense? How far were you able to read in it? Was it boring? If so, how and why?

Be specific in your critique. And write your response to the questions with an aim to be helpful and constructive. Why? Because Ethics teaches us to MAKE THINGS BETTER. If you contend that ethics does not do that, then tell us exactly what you think ethics does do. In other words, define your terms



Thanks in advance for responding to this survey !!! And as a reward for your close study of the document, and for your helpful response, you may refer to this entertaining site for a good laugh: http://news.yahoo.com/comics/andy-capp-slideshow/

That concise little book, BASIC ETHICS, is jam-packed with lots of information useful to students of Ethical Theory. Here is a quick symmary of it, or an Abstract:

It begins by defining "philosophy"; then it defines "value"; then "good".

It then applies the definition of 'value' to value itself, thereby valuing value and as a result it comes up with three Dimensions of Value. These will be used to explain what Ethics is.

It offers some traditional definitions of "ethics" and then defines it from its own perspective - heavily influenced by Husserl's Phenomenology. For it defines "Ethics" as a perspective of a particular kind.
One does not need to be familiar with Phenomenology in order to follow the argument, but if one is, one notices how it bred this very modern viewpoint, this new paradigm.

Actually, there is nothing new in the history of ideas, so there is no claim of originality here. You will recognize that Dr.Katz published portions of his little booklet right here at this Forum as individual, stand-alone threads.

So as you can tell, the paper proceeds in a logical fashion. The value dimensions are employed after that to analyze and explain various ethical topics of interest to the moral philosopher. If you love philosophy you will find this essay to be awesome - because it is more systematic than much you have read or studied.

It deals with questions such as: What is "a good action"?; What serves as sanctions for bad conduct?; Can recognizable theories of ethics, such as those taught it universities, be derived by the tools of analysis provided in this system? It answers Yes. It integrates those theories into its grand synthesis. Later it takes up such topics as voter behavior, how to recognize and reconcile gaps in communication among people, social justice, how ethics has evolved, facts of human nature, etc.

Give it a whirl. You may learn something new, something you didn't know before

http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz


Then write a review of it or tell us what you got out of it!

An Epilog could have been written to this book with the title: Why Accept this System?

The text might read as follows:

There are questions to ask about any system and thus about this specific system: It it coherent? And if it is, does it apply to the world outside itself? The first question is a systemic one while the second question is an extrinsic one. One also might ask: Is it relevant to ethics, that is to say, does it help people to live together more harmoniously, to cooperate in reaching common goals, to live responsibly with integrity?

This present system does in fact cohere, since the dimensions of value, S, E, and I, tie its parts together into a coherent network of concepts. And it is evident to the careful reader that this system does have many applications to the everyday world as well as to the moral life. Agreeing with those moral philosophers who claim that "freedom" is a term of ethics, let us discuss briefly various kinds of freedom by way of showing one more relevant application of the theory.

ON FREEDOM

While we have freedom to think as we please, and while not everyone yet has freedom to travel and other means of mobility, there is one freedom that is highest of all, and that is freedom of conscience, along with the unfettered freedom to express one's conscience. Freedom of conscience is an Intrinsic value. {In contrast, freedom of thought is Systemic; and freedom to move about - mobility - is Extrinsic.} As explained earlier, Ethics affirms freedom of conscience. One who leads an ethical life will recommend and will respect conscientiousness and conscientious objection. An ethical person will listen to his/her conscience and will sensitize it to be attuned to the principles derived from the discipline of Ethics.

Since the system of Ethics complies with The Coherence Theory of Truth (which is a Systemic value); and to The Correspondence Theory of Truth (which is an Extrinsic value) since it correlates with empirical data ...with life outside the network of coherent concepts, it remains for the reader to decide if the theory can be embraced as a personal truth. Is it Existentially True, that is, true for you? If it is, fine; if not, then improve upon it. Make it better! Then put it into practice and live it.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . ################

The first post in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12194 once it is slightly edited could serve as a Preface to the booklet, BASIC ETHICS.

And the first three paragraphs of the initial post in this thread: -
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12528
could be considered a Prologue to BASIC ETHICS.

If they - Preface, Prologue, and Epilogue - were attached to the original paper (now 45 pp. with size 14 font), do you think it would then become too long? Some folks, bred on the Internet,or conditioned by Twitter or similar apps, would be impatient, would find it tedious to study a book that lengthy. Of course, if the type font were condensed to the size that we see in many a book printed these days, then BASIC ETHICS would perhaps be half the length it is now.

What say you?