Page 1 of 2

Ethical clarity and the role of character

Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:03 am
by prof
.
Ethics has to do with human relations and with how human being cooperate harmoniously. It also is concerned with the good life for the good individual.

Let us reduce Ethics to its simplest elements: The most fundamental aspect of Ethics is caring. Before there is cooperating there is caring; one must care enough to engage in cooperation. The same applies to collaboration with others, to courtesy, and to compliance with moral principles. Compassion may be defined as intensive caring. Empathy is an intuitive form of caring. Kindness is caring in action. Self-interest is caring applied to the self. Love is a willingness to serve and care for another because one beholds countless possibilities and qualities for mutual enhancement.

The classroom or academic term for this is ‘Intrinsic valuation.’ It is a process of giving full attention, getting involved, identifying with, and eventually bonding. This is a technical way of speaking about maximum caring. To employ the term I-valuing is to refer to this process.

Self-interest is enlightened, or wise, when there is an awareness that what really helps you helps me, for we need each other. We are social animals. Cooperation enabled us to survive to this day as a species when so many other species have become extinct. We need more cooperation on goals that we share. We individually, and socially, attain a quality life by creating value. For further details see the writings to which links are offered below - safe to open, and cost-free.

In other places I have explained how having good character tends to result in good conduct; and acquiring character is a factor of either having a role model of good character, or learning early in life that treasuring a living person is worth more to you than treasuring a material thing (such as your new yacht); and that a material thing, something concrete and tangible, is worth more than the ideologies, systems and theories. One way of acquiring a good character is by making use of the self-chosen “obligatory norms” of which R. S. Hartman speaks. See the quick summary in the section on Norms, p.19, in BASIC ETHICS: A Systematic Approach (2014) - http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf

True, we need all the dimensions of value, and a holistic viewpoint is healthy; and that is why the child – once Ethics is widely taught - would learn about the web of life and how it is connected to the web of the universe, how human nature is a subset of natural forces -- and above all, if we get in harmony and alignment with those natural forces we will have a life full of joy and serenity, a life of fulfillment. We will flourish.

Furthermore, this new, yet old, paradigm for ethical theory in the manual - a link to which is offered here: http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/wp-cont ... course.pdf - offers the reader value knowledge. ...And what is the benefit of that?

Value knowledge is insurance against personal and social disorder.

Science presents us with empirical value. As we know from the history of science, Philosophy is prior to science both logically and time-wise. There was natural philosophy before there was physical science. Philosophy asks the right questions. It is indispensable.

Philosophy discovered that every value is fact-laden and that every fact is value-laden...i.e., persons select which facts to give attention to, and thus to value, selecting these out of the myriad of other facts available. This gives a new perspective to the distinctions made by Hume, in 1739, in his Treatise. Hume believed that there is a rigid gap between fact and value. Hartman, in 1967, taught us that value arises out of a novel recombination of facts. (Creativity is a rearrangement of existing properties.)

So let us be thankful for, and appreciative of, Philosophy.

Your views and comments?

Re: Ethical clarity and the role of character

Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:57 pm
by prof
Previously I have written about how technology will implement Ethics and will aid in solving the world's major problems. I am pleased to announce a new book, a how-to book, which offers some new ethical technologies. Its title is BOLD. It teaches how to create value, make a billion dollars, and in the process make the world a better place in which to live. You may want to read the customer reviews and to order it for your local library. Here is a link to it: http://www.amazon.com/Bold-Create-Wealt ... words=bold
The book is authored by Peter Diamandes and Stephen Kotler. They also wrote that marvelous little book, ABUNDNCE, which I have previously reviewed here, after I read the interview of Dr. Diamandes by Dr. Sam Harris. Harris, you will recall, wrote The Moral Landscape.

In the first post of this thread I spoke of love. The Greeks had a word for it ...or several wrds for it. You may find it interesting to note the discussion of the topic in Ethical Adventures, pp. 13-14, where the words philia, eros, and agape are given attention, are discussed and elucidated. The topic there is: Degrees of Caring. Here is a link to Ethical Adventures: http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... NTURES.pdf

Enjoy !

Open for comments.

Re: Ethical clarity and the role of character

Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:39 pm
by tbieter
I wince whenever anybody talks about "changing the world". It is like the speaker is ignorant of the concept of limit.

Re: Ethical clarity and the role of character

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 1:06 am
by prof
tbieter wrote:I wince whenever anybody talks about "changing the world". It is like the speaker is ignorant of the concept of limit.
You might think, listening to Peter Diamandes, that he knows no limits; but lately in his daily messages he as been warning of the misuse of technologies, and about how they are a danger in the wrong hands. He did this too at the end of his book, ABUNDANCE. For every technology that his book mentioned as being used for good works he presented a warning as to how it could be used for evil purposes. He is definitely a realist. His latest book, BOLD, instructs those who want to be entrepreneurs how to launch a start-up, how to think big. It gives a step-by-step procedure.

The world is changing every day. We no longer in North-America ask the king's permission to do something positive, such as form an organization to fight climate extremes ..by encouraging the use of renewable energy. More and more individuals are recognized now as having human rights, as being human beings. Even LGBTs can come 'out of the closet.' English is today spoken more-widely in the world than it was 70 years ago. Basic nutritional knowledge has now, after 125 years, finally penetrated the thinking of the average person in the U.S.A., and is no longer restricted to an esoteric handful of those who advocated eating fresh, raw, fruits and vegetables. Many members of the Hausa tribe in Kenya own smart iphones. Many show-business and sports celebrities now sponsor applied-Ethics causes and nonprofits. B-corporations have sprung up. The "B" stands for Benevolent.

Alvin Tofler wrote a book a while back with the title FUTURE SHOCK. It became a best-seller. Many folks suffered from this condition. The world is changing even faster today than it did when he wrote that book.

If the physicists' hypothesis that there are multiple universes is correct, then indeed there are no limits. For both time and space are infinite. And anything is possible.


...Something to think about.......

Re: Ethical clarity and the role of character

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 1:59 am
by tbieter
prof wrote:.
Ethics has to do with human relations and with how human being cooperate harmoniously. It also is concerned with the good life for the good individual.

Let us reduce Ethics to its simplest elements: The most fundamental aspect of Ethics is caring. Before there is cooperating there is caring; one must care enough to engage in cooperation. The same applies to collaboration with others, to courtesy, and to compliance with moral principles. Compassion may be defined as intensive caring. Empathy is an intuitive form of caring. Kindness is caring in action. Self-interest is caring applied to the self. Love is a willingness to serve and care for another because one beholds countless possibilities and qualities for mutual enhancement.

The classroom or academic term for this is ‘Intrinsic valuation.’ It is a process of giving full attention, getting involved, identifying with, and eventually bonding. This is a technical way of speaking about maximum caring. To employ the term I-valuing is to refer to this process.

Self-interest is enlightened, or wise, when there is an awareness that what really helps you helps me, for we need each other. We are social animals. Cooperation enabled us to survive to this day as a species when so many other species have become extinct. We need more cooperation on goals that we share. We individually, and socially, attain a quality life by creating value. For further details see the writings to which links – safe to open - are offered, cost-free.

In other places I have explained how having good character tends to result in good conduct; and acquiring character is a factor of either having a role model of good character, or learning early in life that treasuring a living person is worth more to you than treasuring a material thing (such as your new yacht); and that a material thing, something concrete and tangible, is worth more than the ideologies, systems and theories. One way of acquiring a good character is by making use of the self-chosen “obligatory norms” of which R. S. Hartman speaks. See the quick summary in the section on Norms in BASIC ETHICS: A Systematic Approach (2014) - http://tinyurl.com/2mj5b3

True, we need all the dimensions of value, and a holistic viewpoint is healthy; and that is why the child – once Ethics is widely taught - would learn about the web of life and how it is connected to the web of the universe, how human nature is a subset of natural forces -- and above all, if we get in harmony and alignment with those natural forces we will have a life full of joy and serenity, a life of fulfillment. We will flourish.

Furthermore, this new, yet old, paradigm for ethical theory in the manual - a link to which is offered here: http://tinyurl.com/2mj5b3 - offers the reader value knowledge. ...And what is the benefit of that?

Value knowledge is insurance against personal and social disorder.

Science presents us with empirical value. As we know from the history of science, Philosophy is prior to science both logically and time-wise. There was natural philosophy before there was physical science. Philosophy asks the right questions. It is indispensable.

Philosophy discovered that every value is fact-laden and that every fact is value-laden...i.e., persons select which facts to give attention to, and thus to value, selecting these out of the myriad of other facts available. This gives a new perspective to the distinctions made by Hume, in 1739, in his Treatise. Hume believed that there is a rigid gap between fact and value. Hartman, in 1967, taught us that value arises out of a novel recombination of facts. (Creativity is a rearrangement of existing properties.)

So let us be thankful for, and appreciative of, Philosophy.

Your views and comments?
"Let us reduce Ethics to its simplest elements: The most fundamental aspect of Ethics is caring. Before there is cooperating there is caring; one must care enough to engage in cooperation.", supra

In a feminist philosophy course, we read an essay that argued for an "ethics of caring." The author said that the ethic entailed caring for animals (sentient beings) and even dead bodies!

I then asked the class professor if the author's ethic also entailed an opposition to the intentional abortion of the unborn human being. Her mouth dropped open in shock at my politically incorrect question.

It is my understanding that that the "ethics of care" was just a fad and that it passed as fads do.

Re: Ethical clarity and the role of character

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 2:51 am
by prof
I am not responsible for "the ethics of care" although it is a current theory of ethics. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_care

I am only responsible for the new paradigm to which I call attention, which is deduced from Hartman's formal value theory - also known as 'Value Science.' The latter word in this context is used in the old German sense, meaning: "a body of knowledge." An academic journal is issued exploring the ramifications of it, and showing its applications to many fields of practical life.

The new paradigm I have dubbed a unified theory of Ethics. [UTE]. My theory is not particularly feminist, although, some might argue, it is both masculine and feminine. It contends that the Ethical viewpoint arises when individuals are Intrinsically-valued. In popular, everyday, jargon this could be translated as caring. It is a matter of degree. See: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=13302

Also, it should be noted, that while I emphasize the concept 'character' which I learned from Virtue Ethics, I do not endorse Virtue Ethics as, by itself alone, the best ethical theory. I believe we can build an even-better ethical theory than mine if we collaborate together on the project.

Furthermore, one knows if a person is of good character during his/her lifetime; one doesn't have to die first. I disagree with those who claim you have to be dead before others can detect that you are a person of good will, who they can trust. The concept "has good character" is very close to the concept "has integrity." I am not exactly sure yet how they connect. Maybe someone out there can help me out with this, show the relation with more precision. That will really be a fine contribution to the doing of philosophy. {A model to explicate "integrity" was offered at the end of my booklet, Katz -A Unified Theory of Ethics. Those who care enough will look it up, will google it.

Re: Ethical clarity and the role of character

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:08 pm
by tbieter
prof wrote:I am not responsible for "the ethics of care" although it is a current theory of ethics. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_care

I am only responsible for the new paradigm to which I call attention, which is deduced from Hartman's formal value theory - also known as 'Value Science.' The latter word in this context is used in the old German sense, meaning: "a body of knowledge." An academic journal is issued exploring the ramifications of it, and showing its applications to many fields of practical life.

The new paradigm I have dubbed a unified theory of Ethics. [UTE]. My theory is not particularly feminist, although, some might argue, it is both masculine and feminine. It contends that the Ethical viewpoint arises when individuals are Intrinsically-valued. In popular, everyday, jargon this could be translated as caring. It is a matter of degree. See: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=13302

Also, it should be noted, that while I emphasize the concept 'character' which I learned from Virtue Ethics, I do not endorse Virtue Ethics as, by itself alone, the best ethical theory. I believe we can build an even-better ethical theory than mine if we collaborate together on the project.

Furthermore, one knows if a person is of good character during his/her lifetime; one doesn't have to die first. I disagree with those who claim you have to be dead before others can detect that you are a person of good will, who they can trust. The concept "has good character" is very close to the concept "has integrity." I am not exactly sure yet how they connect. Maybe someone out there can help me out with this, show the relation with more precision. That will really be a fine contribution to the doing of philosophy. {A model to explicate "integrity" was offered at the end of my booklet, Katz -A Unified Theory of Ethics. Those who care enough will look it up, will google it.
"The new paradigm I have dubbed a unified theory of Ethics. [UTE]. My theory is not particularly feminist, although, some might argue, it is both masculine and feminine. It contends that the Ethical viewpoint arises when individuals are Intrinsically-valued. In popular, everyday, jargon this could be translated as caring."

Is the unborn child "intrinsically-valued" so that its intentional abortion is prohibited?

Re: Ethical clarity and the role of character

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:03 pm
by prof
What is your definition of "child", Tom?

Once a fetus develops consciousness it is preferable that abortion be avoided except to save the life of the mother. The morning-after pill, if a girl knows enough to take it, and if it is freely available at a price a poor person can afford, obviates the need for most all abortions.

Us men ought to keep in mind that a woman has a right to determine the use of her own body.

My experience has been that many anti-abortionists don't care much about the child after it is born They are ready to martyr it by sending it off to war once it gets older; they don't mind much if it goes hungry, or if its parents mistreat it, etc. The UTE theory of ethics teaches that we need a child-centered society in the sense that we need to focus more on how children are treated.

p.s. ...Speaking of children. In an Ethical world kids will be taught emotional-control at an early age: they will learn the ABCs of avoiding needless emotional pain. See: http://www.amazon.com/Shameless-Happine ... ewpoints=1 and see http://www.amazon.com/Happy-Life-Strate ... R5B061RGHD
t These concepts have already been put in words and pictures that tiny kinds can understand, and it is preferable that the lessons be taught to everyone at an early an age as possible.

Re: Ethical clarity and the role of character

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 11:56 pm
by prof
Adults might learn this too.

Most of our problems in relationships come down to unreasonable expections and/or irrational nagative beliefs. When you find yourself in one of these stressful moments, you have to slow down and identify the erroneous thinking, change it, and then re-evaluate where you are, usually resulting in a much less of a painful-emotional outcome.

Painful emotions are fear, anxiety, intense stress, hot anger, contempt, sustained disgust, shame, guilt, bitterness, psychological depression, up-tightness, hatred, frustration, horror, etc.

The opposite of these are emotions such as tranquility, inner peace, thankfulness, hope, love, fulfillment, aspiration, etc. These feelings can result from living ethically, from harmonious human relationships. And animals - at least mammals - are included also. Note what I said about many pet owners in the UTE, p.49 of Part I. http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/A%20UNI ... ETHICS.pdf They regard their pet as a person, and relate to it that way. Are they wrong? No.

Comments?

Re: Ethical clarity and the role of character

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 9:36 pm
by prof
Earlier I mentioned the book titled BOLD. It needs to be supplemented by a reading of this concise book, if one is to innovate, in a business, and thus create more value: http://www.amazon.com/Lean-Enterprise-P ... ewpoints=1

Also this book is helpful for those who are into software, business, and want to create value: http://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/0 ... ewpoints=1

Yett most important, and most-relevant to Ethics, is this book, ANSWERING THE CENTRAL QUESTION. Read about it here: http://www.amazon.com/Answering-Central ... +questrion - Although written for a general audience, for students, parents, teachers, administrators, thinking people in all walks of life, I believe that if executives and managers at all levels were acquainted with the principles in these pages, they would build better work-teams and as a result have a harmonious culture in the workplace. The mission of the company would be ethics-compliant and the individuals in it would be more-deeply ethical.

Comments and reviews welcome!

Re: Ethical clarity and the role of character

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:04 pm
by tbieter
prof wrote:What is your definition of "child", Tom?
An incipient being that is human

Once a fetus develops consciousness What determines consciousness to be the cut-off point between life and death? How do you determine when consciousness arises? it is preferable that abortion be avoided except to save the life of the mother. What privileges consciousness? What privileges the life of the mother over the life of the fetus? You state:"My theory is not particularly feminist, although, some might argue, it is both masculine and feminine. It contends that the Ethical viewpoint arises when individuals are Intrinsically-valued." Are not both the mother and the human fetus "intrinsically-valued"?The morning-after pill, if a girl knows enough to take it, and if it is freely available at a price a poor person can afford, obviates the need for most all abortions.

Us men ought to keep in mind that a woman has a right to determine the use of her own body.

My experience has been that many anti-abortionists don't care much about the child after it is born This is a common unsupported argument advanced by pro-abortion people against anti-abortion people. Yet, I've never seen any empirical evidence supporting the argument. What is "your experience?"

Mine was the opposite. Clients contacted me when their 14 year-old-daughter got pregnant to decide what to do. I decided and advised that she give birth and give the child up for adoption. I contacted the Duluth organization that offered pro-life services similar to this organization. (I don't remember the name.) http://www.freeadoptionhelp.com/wp/ They certainly delivered services to the family indefinitely. A year or so later the girl contacted me for questions about college. She said she was doing fine. If I remember correctly, the adoption was local, the adoptive parents known to the mother, and she would be having contact with the child. What was your personal experience?
They are ready to martyr it by sending it off to war once it gets older; they don't mind much if it goes hungry, or if its parents mistreat it, etc. The UTE theory of ethics teaches that we need a child-centered society in the sense that we need to focus more on how children are treated.

p.s. ...Speaking of children. In an Ethical world kids will be taught emotional-control at an early age: they will learn the ABCs of avoiding needless emotional pain. See: http://www.amazon.com/Shameless-Happine ... ewpoints=1 and see http://www.amazon.com/Happy-Life-Strate ... R5B061RGHD
t These concepts have already been put in words and pictures that tiny kinds can understand, and it is preferable that the lessons be taught to everyone at an early an age as possible.

Re: Ethical clarity and the role of character

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 11:03 pm
by tbieter
tbieter wrote:
prof wrote:I am not responsible for "the ethics of care" although it is a current theory of ethics. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_care

I am only responsible for the new paradigm to which I call attention, which is deduced from Hartman's formal value theory - also known as 'Value Science.' The latter word in this context is used in the old German sense, meaning: "a body of knowledge." An academic journal is issued exploring the ramifications of it, and showing its applications to many fields of practical life.

The new paradigm I have dubbed a unified theory of Ethics. [UTE]. My theory is not particularly feminist, although, some might argue, it is both masculine and feminine. It contends that the Ethical viewpoint arises when individuals are Intrinsically-valued. In popular, everyday, jargon this could be translated as caring. It is a matter of degree. See: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=13302

Also, it should be noted, that while I emphasize the concept 'character' which I learned from Virtue Ethics, I do not endorse Virtue Ethics as, by itself alone, the best ethical theory. I believe we can build an even-better ethical theory than mine if we collaborate together on the project.

Furthermore, one knows if a person is of good character during his/her lifetime; one doesn't have to die first. I disagree with those who claim you have to be dead before others can detect that you are a person of good will, who they can trust. The concept "has good character" is very close to the concept "has integrity." I am not exactly sure yet how they connect. Maybe someone out there can help me out with this, show the relation with more precision. That will really be a fine contribution to the doing of philosophy. {A model to explicate "integrity" was offered at the end of my booklet, Katz -A Unified Theory of Ethics. Those who care enough will look it up, will google it.
"The new paradigm I have dubbed a unified theory of Ethics. [UTE]. My theory is not particularly feminist, although, some might argue, it is both masculine and feminine. It contends that the Ethical viewpoint arises when individuals are Intrinsically-valued. In popular, everyday, jargon this could be translated as caring."

Is the unborn child "intrinsically-valued" so that its intentional abortion is prohibited?
Prof, you never answered this question.

I think that from your ethics you must answer "yes". I quote you:


“When we focus on the specific, the particular, the one-of-a-kind
unique entity we are Intrinsically valuing. We have entered the
domain of emphasis, emotion, metaphor, intimate and private
language, satori, I-and-Thou, involvement, intense concentration,
diversity-within-unity. It is what Bergson called compenetration,
what Husserl called Intentionality.

We get emphatic about I-values, we get involved with them, we
become one with them, we form a continuum between the valuer
and what is valued. This is Intrinsic valuation. To value is to
prize, prefer, desire, assess, qualify. To I-value is to see
something as a whole, to give it our focus, to interact with it, to
treasure it, even to have reverence for it. Life, love, liberty,
leisure, joy, beauty, individuality, morality, integrity, sincerity,
authenticity are I-values. If we call something “genuine” or “real”
we are I-valuing it. We tend to I-value our hobbies. We also Ivalue
our deepest convictions. When we I-value we care about
what we value. Caring, as will soon become quite clear, is an
important application of Intrinsic valuation. When we care about a
person, the evidence shows we don’t mind sharing with that ... (Emphasis added)
http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ETHICS.pdf

Re: Ethical clarity and the role of character

Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:06 pm
by prof
Greetings, Tom

My view is that there is no such thing as an "unborn child." It only becomes a child after it is born.

I do not happen to have a fetus fetish, nor do I Intrinsically value an embryo either. Yes, I do value more highly the life of the mother over the fetus she carries. I do Intrinsically value the living person. While I may be willing to consider the concept that a new life may begin at conception, until someone is born they are not an individual. Ethics arises when we In-value an individual, or group of them. This is true both by definition and by observation.

...In re that teen-ager having rights to contact the child to which she gave birth, the one that now has a set of adoptive parents ...it does not strike me as an advisable situation, for sooner or later the real mother is liable to tell (or let it leak out to) the little child "I am actually your mother." This will cause confusion in the mind of the tyke that will haunt it for life, since the child has been socialized to believe that these adoptive woman is its mother, its parent. The arrangement results in some instability which is not healthy for the child, in my opinion.

To Intrinsically value is to give full attention to, etc., as I explained in an earlier post. I don't know why some people are so obsessed either with a collection of cells, or with a fetus. I presented for readers here a proposed compromise that I had learned of - one between the anti-abortionists and the women's rights people, namely: The ethical decision is not to abort once signs of brain consciousness are detected - but the antis do not seem willing to compromise (assuming they are capable of it.) This compromise was proposed by Dr. Frank Forrest, the author of ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING FOR THE 21st-CENTURY. The book was based upon material from a course taught in a college in Daytona Beach, Florida.

Both sides can and do agree that abortions are to be kept to a minimum, if at all feasible. With current technology it is possible to do so, at least for those with money and sufficient education.

Although this discussion may seem to many to be off-topic, and belongs in the Applied Ethics Forum, I have addressed it because you, Tom, are a nice guy. I trust I have spoken to your concerns and have been relevant. Let's return to the matter taken up in the o.p. which is an attempt to tighten-up ethical theory, to make it more precise and clear. Okay?

Re: Ethical clarity and the role of character

Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 8:32 pm
by prof
The description of this Forum reads:
Ethical Theory

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?


The best answer is that if you concentrate on being a good person you WILL think about the effects your actions will have, and you will think about, and actually do, your responsibilities.

There is more to Ethical Theory though. And it's this:

The software of the correct values and concepts enable the hardware of effective technologies that will facilitate ethical living ...the living of a quality life.

"Grads of Life" is such a technology. http://gradsoflife.org/ which helps the unemployed get the training they need in a field that interests them, so that they can succeed. {"Success" is an ethical concept.} Wikipedia is such a technology, and so is the Mozilla Firefox browser - both open-source collaborative endeavors. So is this Federation too: https://www.usworker.coop/ So also are the countless nonprofits devoted to doing good-cause work that you may learn about on the internet. See YES! magazine and The Rational Optimist magazine for more; they are both available online and are both free. ...New ethical technologies are being developed every day. And that is why - if you give them your support and/or your volunteer effort - goodness can prevail over evil.


Your comments?

Re: Ethical clarity and the role of character

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 11:10 pm
by prof
In an effort to contribute to ethical clarity, which is the topic of this thread, I've just made a breakthrough in ethical theory, possibly, that I want to share with you and get your comments on it:

Just as motion varies as per the amount of time consumed by that motion [or, to say it another way, Motion is a function of Time, as shown in the formula v = s/t or D = rt], in the same sense Ethics varies as the degree of harmonious cooperation. :idea: :!: :!:

Ethics is a function of HC, harmonious cooperation. HC includes sharing, kindness, altruism, having a generous nature, courtesy, respect, reliability, integrity, honesty, etc.

Time, as you know, is measured in seconds, minutes, hours, years, eons,, etc. So far, the unit measures for harmonious cooperation, HC, are rough and vague: more, less, intense, broad, strong, weak, etc. Eventually, and with the aid perhaps of that branch of math with the unfortunate name: Fuzzy Logic -- which, ironically, isn't fuzzy at all but is rather precise -- research scientists in the field of Ethics (as science) will sharpen up the measurement and devise appropriate units. This is a predictable development that will occur.

To learn more about Fuzzy Logic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

I would love to hear your insights and suggestions as to how to make this better.
How would you measure HC?
It is definitely a matter of degree; what name for a unit of it would you propose?

Comments?