Philosophy Now Forum

.

A good Ethical system, a logical theory, will deduce reasons for living morally. Those are systemic. There are practical, extrinsic, advantages as well. Let us list a few of them now.

Behaving morally, being nice is the easiest way for an individual to be. If you try it you will find that it will suit your temperament, and that pleasing people will make it more likely that they will please you. It greases wheels and levels paths. It tends to make life pleasant. It pays forward to make this world better for all of us to live in, including yourself. Also there is ancient wisdom found in many cultures: the “Golden Rule.” Versions of this rule are found in dozens of human cultures.

One form of The Golden Rule is: 'Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.' In other words, do no harm: live ethically. Rules are Systemic values. As explained in some of my earlier posts and threads here, living Ethically means Intrinsically-valuing conscious individuals. It means putting people first.

'Good' is the default and inherent nature of being human. We have empirical evidence for this - namely, the innocence of a baby - until that innocence is perverted by the culture in which a child is immersed. And acting against our inherent nature results in causing ourselves internal strife. We thus experience needless stress. We cease to have peace of mind. We sacrifice our serenity.

We can also demonstrate this theoretically as well. We can test this default principle by assuming its opposite and seeing where that would lead us. What if no one could trust anything anyone else said or did because everyone behaved immorally all the time? Wouldn’t that society soon fall apart? Wouldn’t it soon self-destruct? If that legendary Dobu society ever existed, where is it today? We thus conclude that it is universal and necessary to behave morally. Although all humans are born with the potential to be unethical, one can learn to modulate one's evil impulses and strive towards the highest good at all times in accordance with the moral law. There are other reasons to be moral e.g., self-respect and respecting the basic dignity of others.

Furthermore, if you genuinely want to be you can be morally good. Do you care at all about the welfare of others? If you care about others, then it makes sense to be nice to others. If you are uncaring then you do not know your own self-interest. Once people know what is in their true interest, normal people are just inclined to be kind to one another just as people feel a need to eat and to sleep.

Ultimately moral goodness is only "good" insofar as it is harmonious with that which is smart, wise, and efficient. No one wants to be stupid, foolish, or inefficient. So if you conduct yourself morally, you will focus on being wise and efficient. You will learn the basic principles of Ethics, the science, and will aspire to practice those principles, put them into action. Demonstrating loving goodness toward others will make you feel more fulfilled as a person.

For all these reasons, and more, morality makes sense, and immorality doesn’t make sense. Good reasoning will help us figure things out.

Do you have some additional answers to offer if a person should ask you: "Why should I be nice?"

Speak up. Let's hear them!

prof wrote:'Good' is the default and inherent nature of being human. We have empirical evidence for this - namely, the innocence of a baby - until that innocence is perverted by the culture in which a child is immersed.

That's not how christianity sees it. Our moral compass has been set by the idea that a baby is born sinful and must beg forgiveness. If you wish to reform morality, you will need to eradicate that ludicrous god we've had defining good and bad for the last two millennia.

prof wrote:Furthermore, if you genuinely want to be you can be morally good. Do you care at all about the welfare of others? If you care about others, then it makes sense to be nice to others.

You're a 'prof', you presumably understand words like platitudinous.

prof wrote:If you are uncaring then you do not know your own self-interest. Once people know what is in their true interest, normal people are just inclined to be kind to one another just as people feel a need to eat and to sleep.

Ultimately moral goodness is only "good" insofar as it is harmonious with that which is smart, wise, and efficient. No one wants to be stupid, foolish, or inefficient. So if you conduct yourself morally, you will focus on being wise and efficient.

Socrates tried that line, I didn't think anyone really bought it.

prof wrote:Do you have some additional answers to offer if a person should ask you: "Why should I be nice?"

Speak up. Let's hear them!

Nice? Well, I generally like people wish the best for anyone who isn't exploiting or harming others. More importantly, I think we should be fair and enable everyone to flourish as their ability allows, to reward endeavour rather than privilege or violence, so as not to waste our most valuable resource.

PROF, I thought of you when I read the post "My Philosophy."
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13654&hilit=my+philosophy
Here is a brief philosophy that prof can criticize from an ethical standpoint, thought I.

I look forward to your comments, prof

I LOVE IT when people - such as Richard Garner, Olsen, Mackie, Philosopher 123, etc., display Moral Skepticism!

It means that when I discover one moral fact after another I am doing - if not the completely impossible - at least "the highly implausible." It feels good to do that. ...to do what they said couldn't be done.

Here is a moral fact (courtesy of Philosopher 123, who I thank for this fact) namely, the existence of empathy.

Empathy is defined as the propensity to understand, be sensitive to, and vicariously
experience the feelings, thoughts and experience of another. Empathy exists.

Here is another moral fact: Empathy exists all over planet Earth.

And another moral fact:

Empathy often does promote cooperation in projects for mutual benefit, as well as group cohesiveness.

Another fact:

This cohesiveness tends to promote the survival and reproductive capabilities of those who have
empathy. {There are, of course, many exceptions; this is only a tendency.} [One example of this is Charley Chaplin, a man with whom the worldwide movie industry felt a great deal of cohesiveness, who survived to a late age with full reproductive capabilities. There are many other instances as well.]

These facts can be confirmed, time and again, by experiments, and lab tests, employing the best -known statistical procedures, to a 95% level of confidence.


Precious!!

And many thanks to you,tbieter, for the lead to his paper
.

prof wrote:i LOVE IT when people - such as Richard Garner, Olsen, Mackie, Philosopher 123, etc., display Moral Skepticism!

It means that when I discover one moral fact after another I am doing - if not the completely impossible - at least "the highly implausible." It feels good to do that. ...to do what they said couldn't be done.

Here is a moral fact (courtesy of Philosopher 123, who I thank for this fact) namely, the existence of empathy.

Empathy (defined as the propensity to understand, be sensitive to, and vicariously
experience the feelings, thoughts and experience of another) often does promote
cooperation in projects for mutual benefit, as well as group cohesiveness.

Another fact:

This cohesiveness tends to promote the survival and reproductive capabilities of those who have
empathy. {There are, of course, many exceptions; this is only a tendency.}

These facts can be confirmed, time and again, by experiments and lab tests, employing the best -known statistical procedures, to a 95% level of confidence.


Precious!!

And many thanks to you,tbieter, for the lead to his paper
.

You are not really 'discovering' moral facts, as anyone can simply discover them by doing some thinking. It's good to be moral, but it's wrong to be self-righteous in constantly boasting it; specifically posting the same posts when a while later the message just dulls out.

Who is it that "constantly boasts it"??

Certainly not I.

I agree with you that It's good to be moral.

I also agree that it's wrong to be self-righteous.

{When I used the words I "discovered," I meant it in the sense that I came upon a concept, I found out about it, but others had first invented or created the concept. Many moral facts I learned about came from those who administer the Hartman Value Profile. They are Life Coaches. See, on the web, www.Axiogenics.com}

I have advocated humility in earlier posts, and strive to practice it. Modesty forbids my discussing this any further.

The teaching on ethical theory contributed by yours truly at this Forum is not about me. It is put forth in an effort to produce a better theory of Ethics.

What do you think of the argument in the o.p.? Is it all persuasive? It is not original. I get ideas from others, from everywhere.

uwot wrote:... I generally like people [and] wish the best for anyone who isn't exploiting or harming others. More importantly, I think we should be fair and enable everyone to flourish as their ability allows, to reward endeavour rather than privilege or violence, so as not to waste our most valuable resource.

Thank you, uwot, for a very-constructive contribution to the topic of this Forum.

Let us all emphasize the values

OPPORTUNITY

Equal opportunity for everyone! Special privileges for no one!

RESPONSIBILITY

especially civic responsibility. Be sure to cast a ballot, to vote for ethical policies. Otherwise those who DO vote will be exercising power over your life.

COMMUNITY.

An individual conscious human being is our most valuable resource. Don't let it go to waste. Educate; enhance ; help. Help yourself to grow morally. We all need each other. We rise or we fall together.

Well I can only speak personally but an easier ride through life, and that is all that needs be said IMHO.

Blaggard wrote:Well I can only speak personally but an easier ride through life, and that is all that needs be said IMHO.

Greetings, my friend, Blaggard

Are you saying - in a very condensed way - that you experienced an"easier ride though life" because your conduct was for the most part moral?

Tell us, in a bit more detail, how the ride could have been more difficult if you had not behaved morally. I know you are speaking personally, but are there possibly lessons here for others?


p.s. Has everyone here read BASIC ETHICS yet -- skipping perhaps over the first nine pages if they seem too technical -- http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf

If so, what do you think of it? Was it a good job, worth doing?

If not, why not?

By the way, "moral skepticism" was mentioned earlier.

Moral skepticism is defined as the philosophical position that there are no objective moral facts.


The science of Ethics establishes otherwise.
"Science" is defined here as: a study, a discipline, which gathers empirical data to provide useful information. It aims to be as systematic as possible, and to serve as a guide to further research. It integrates both theory and practice. The theory incorporates within itself most all the known schools of ethics that have stood the test of time. In addition there are toti-resultant properties that emerge that were not there as input.

In one of those weird coincidences right after the objective moral fact of EMPATHY was mentioned in our discussion here I went to my email inbox and found there an invitation to an international Conference on Theory of Value, from a formal perspective. One of the presentations to be given there has this title:

"The Axiometric and Psychological Structure of Empathy." Adina Borta will give the talk with a power-point presentation. To get a description of the content, scroll down the list, of the abstracts of the program, until you see her name. Here is the Invitation to the Conference to be held in October, 2014.


Knoxville Airport Hilton

GLOBAL
CONFERENCE
October 16-17, 2014

Theme:
Envisioning the Future

Vera Mefford
Program Chair

Location:
Airport Hilton
Knoxville, TN

Program

Life Code: The Beginning of the Beginning

Wayne Carpenter, Presenter

What is life? What are the conditions which are necessary for life to exist? Why does life exist? What laws and principles govern the existence of life? Could there have been a time when there was no life? What does the concept of life mean? Are there meta laws and principles which define and govern life?

We are living in an age of rapid shifts in paradigms, in a time of discoveries in all of the sciences almost by the day. Will these paradigm shifts provide a complete understanding of life within the boundaries of the laws and principles of natural science? What if there are laws, principles and corollaries in the science of axiology which can provide a new understanding of the nature and purpose of life? An exploration of this "What If" is the scope of this paper.



Making the World a Better Place
Douglas C. Lawrence, PhD, Presenter

This is an update into the continuing investigation into the Atmospheric Realm of Value which helps to further clarify, substantiate and define a 4th Dimension of Value. Two keywords, Space and Place, serve to unlock many Axiological insights into this realm of value. Herein, two areas of knowledge, that of Philosophical Thought and the Biological Sciences are focused on relative to Space and Place. In the case of philosophical thought, Edward S. Casey's book, The Fate of Place, serves to uncover the complete philosophical history of Place and Space. This work covers Heidegger, Whitehead, Aristotle, Kant, Husserl and many others as to how they have weighed on these two key terms. In the case of Biological Sciences, many new and exciting inroads have been made in Brain Sciences regarding specific types of brain cells, known as place cells. The great importance these structures play in our everyday lives further serves as empirical proof of the value that place holds to our very being. In summary, Axiology can help Make the World a Better Place by bringing an improved understanding to the ethos of the primal significance of this realm of value.


Values & Globalization

Elsa Martinez, Presenter

Envision your "Self": A deeper look at the three dimensions in the "Self" side of the HVP

Pamela Brooks, Presenter

I am frequently asked how "coachable" are the areas in the self? I find it to be a loaded question that does not have a simple answer. This presentation will focus on each the major dimensions in the self and talk about what they really imply and what potentially could be driving the scores to get a better understanding of how to work with people in different ranges. The bottom line to any answer though is change only comes through awareness and work. I person may see and understand what you say, but the real key is will they act on what they see and do the work to bring about a positive change in themselves.

Go Find Yourself!: Existential Analysis through Axiological Profiling.

Malcolm North, Presenter

The debate rages on the nature of human consciousness and identity. Who are we really? Can we really find a meaningful sense of self? An axiological analysis intersects both philosophy and psychology to bring the most definitive answer to an age-old mystery.


The Axiometric and Psychological Structure of Empathy

Adina Borta, Presenter

Empathy has a special place on the axiological map and pervades much of all interpersonal interactions, abilities and activities. Within the psychological body of knowledge although the history of the concept of empathy goes back as far as to 1873, the actual understanding and rigorous scientific study of it became possible only recently with the aid from neurosciences. Thus it is possible now to explore more deeply the concept of empathy through the double lens of axiometry and psychology, as shown by the results of the present research.


GRANT WRITING: 10 Key Steps

Joan Minor, Presenter

The Grant Writing workshop introduces how to develop fundable ideas and walks through 10 key steps for preparing any basic grant application. Instruction includes proposal writing tips for effective communication that generates dollars, using hands-on exercises. In addition, the workshop introduces the grants marketplace, focusing on free information available online for identifying potential private foundation and public funding sources. Presenter Joan Minor began writing grants in 1990 as an employee for a large non-profit organization. Since launching Appalachian Resources, LLC in 2000, she has coordinated a network of home-based entrepreneurs to provide grant writing, grants search, training workshops, and project management services.


......And many more fascinating workshops and papers on theoretical and applied formal axiology.
Details as to how to register for the Conference are found here at this link:
http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/robert- ... onference/

prof wrote:

Blaggard wrote:Well I can only speak personally but an easier ride through life, and that is all that needs be said IMHO.

Greetings, my friend, Blaggard

Are you saying - in a very condensed way - that you experienced an"easier ride though life" because your conduct was for the most part moral?

Tell us, in a bit more detail, how the ride could have been more difficult if you had not behaved morally. I know you are speaking personally, but are there possibly lessons here for others?


p.s. Has everyone here read BASIC ETHICS yet -- skipping perhaps over the first nine pages if they seem too technical -- http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf

If so, what do you think of it? Was it a good job, worth doing?

If not, why not?

How about I tell you what I think, instead of you forcing on me what you think, as if I have to, like some dumb mushroom?

Clap along if you feel like a room without a roof.

There was enough said in my first post, the rest is just BS, behave well and do so not just because you can but because it is good. One must ask how much simpler it get's than leading a good life. Some people want to make it complicated but it is just that simple, be good, to other people, don't be bad, if that's hard to understand I will feel sorry for you, if you can not do that.

It's too technical for some people.

Trying to be good or nice could be looked upon as a neurosis. Problems occur when 'niceness' is not returned.
I've heard it referred to as 'idiot compassion'. Thank god for people who do it though...can you imagine if people treated each other like they really wanted to?

But seriously, it's difficult because we're unable to perceive our own actions as they appear through other's eyes. We have to rely on feedback through social contacts and our concepts of kindness gained from different situations (via culture). But this feedback is superficial.

Kids will perceive what they view as most accepting so they won't be made fun of, or how to be the most liked because they get lots of attention. Others will build themselves up so they can appear tough or cool to others. These concepts are sophisticated as they are built upon over time to gain appeal from women. We learn to protect ourselves and get what we want.

Then SOME OF US mature. There are people who look for genuine qualities in people. Many fakes can be spotted. It helps when I put myself in other people's shoes. I think this is a good place to start as opposed to learning how to be good. TRY to take a genuine interest in others and try to understand where they are coming from. Not easy but I think a better road.

uwot wrote:... I generally like people; and I wish the best for anyone who isn't exploiting or harming others. More importantly, I think we should be fair and enable everyone to flourish as their ability allows, to reward endeavour rather than privilege or violence, so as not to waste our most valuable resource.

Well said, uwot !!

The idea for this thread arose when someone asked, "Why should I be nice, and good?"

It seems that some writers here didn't get the message: that being nice pays off. Instead they are rude, insulting, and get their attention by being 'bad boys.' They come off as immature brats, but - as sjeff70 so wisely observed - they are totally unaware of how they look to others.

I think that here on the web they are known as TROLLS.

bYou, in contrast, understand. Good for you. I appreciate your fine contribution to the discussion.+

prof wrote:The idea for this thread arose when someone asked, "Why should I be nice, and good?"

The point I was making is that I don't think there is much mileage trying to base an ethical system on being nice. From what I gather, you are attempting to create some empirical, quantifiable rationale for ethical behaviour; a 'science' of ethics. I think you will make more progress and persuade more people if you were to base your calculus on 'fairness' rather than 'niceness'. I suspect it would be relatively easy to produce data that demonstrates that the greater the opportunities, the better the level of education, the better quality the output and produce, hence the better a community prospers. This has advantages even for sociopathic exploiters: there is more to exploit.

prof wrote:It seems that some writers here didn't get the message: that being nice pays off. Instead they are rude, insulting, and get their attention by being 'bad boys.' They come off as immature brats, but - as sjeff70 so wisely observed - they are totally unaware of how they look to others.

I think that here on the web they are known as TROLLS.

So I gather, I get called that from time to time. I understand from Blaggard that a troll is someone who will adopt a contrary position simply to elicit a response; for a laugh. I don't really see what is wrong with that; it might not be 'nice', but if an argument isn't robust enough to withstand ridicule, it probably isn't much of an argument. Temperamentally, I am disposed towards 'niceness', it's something I struggle to overcome, there are many occasions when the 'ethical' thing is to be cruel to be kind.