On having a good character - a new way of looking at Ethics
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 7:31 am
Wide agreement can be seen on the claim that if one has a good character, all else being equal, one will tend to perform worthwhile actions; will tend to “do the right thing.” This is an emphasis of Virtue Ethics.
Being good (by definition and observation) may result in doing good but not necessarily the other way around: even criminals may sometimes do something good; but of course cannot accurately be described as having a good character.
Furthermore, if one has a good character one will be likely to keep one’s promises, will honor one’s contracts, fulfill one’s obligations, be responsible, do one’s duty. That sort of conduct is what Deontologists advocate.
A person of good character will adhere to ethical principles – such as those offered at the end of the paper by M.C. Katz – Aspects of Ethics; or those offered in the final chapter of Ethics for the 21st Century: Keys to the good life -- or at least will strive to do so. S/he realizes however that there are no moral absolutes. Ethical science, in common with other sciences, does not deal in absolutes.
Consequentialists say we should abstain from certain activities because undesirable effects will result. That they say is the reason why we should not murder, rape, kidnap, steal, or cheat. Many of this school hold that some outcomes, such as the greatest happiness for the most folks, are more desirable than others.
Does this happiness criterion establish – as they claim it does – outcomes that can be identified as objectively desirable? John Stuart Mill would argue that it is not only the number of people who experience the happiness but also the duration of the happiness must be considered. Also the quality of it matters: was it derived by pursuing, and coming close to reaching, a worthwhile goal? Such a goal, one of high value, would contribute to the end of helping each individual flourish, would enhance individual well-being.
Thus we see there need not be any conflict between the three most-dominant contemporary normative ethical theories, i.e., character ethics, action-outcome ethics, and duty ethics.
Is it not so - as Dr. M. C. Katz argues in his contemporary ethical theory is the case - that one’s actions are a reflection of one’s inner morality? He has shown, {in both his Basic Ethics: A systematic approach http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz and in the more-recent Ethics for the 21st Century essay http://www.myqol.com/wadeharveyPDFs/ETH ... ENTURY.pdf } that the three dominant normative ethical theories can be generated by an application of more basic analytical tools, i.e., the primary value dimensions of Dr. R. S. Hartman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Hartman Is it reasonable to claim that a theory that can accomplish this is superior to, and more-acceptable, than one which cannot?
Also, one of those value dimensions is used to define what the field of Ethics is. In the Hartman/Katz system, once “Intrinsic Value” is defined, Ethics itself is then defined as: the application of Intrinsic Value [In-value] to the individual, or to a group of individuals. Then the theory proceeds to define and explain “goodness,” “morality,” “integrity,” “conscience,” “hypocrisy,” “altruism,” “war,” “compassion,” “need,” “success,” “moral action,” and other relevant terms, relating them to one another.. Do you know of any other Ethical Theory that does this or is even capable of doing this?
Comments? Questions? Critiques? Evaluations?
Being good (by definition and observation) may result in doing good but not necessarily the other way around: even criminals may sometimes do something good; but of course cannot accurately be described as having a good character.
Furthermore, if one has a good character one will be likely to keep one’s promises, will honor one’s contracts, fulfill one’s obligations, be responsible, do one’s duty. That sort of conduct is what Deontologists advocate.
A person of good character will adhere to ethical principles – such as those offered at the end of the paper by M.C. Katz – Aspects of Ethics; or those offered in the final chapter of Ethics for the 21st Century: Keys to the good life -- or at least will strive to do so. S/he realizes however that there are no moral absolutes. Ethical science, in common with other sciences, does not deal in absolutes.
Consequentialists say we should abstain from certain activities because undesirable effects will result. That they say is the reason why we should not murder, rape, kidnap, steal, or cheat. Many of this school hold that some outcomes, such as the greatest happiness for the most folks, are more desirable than others.
Does this happiness criterion establish – as they claim it does – outcomes that can be identified as objectively desirable? John Stuart Mill would argue that it is not only the number of people who experience the happiness but also the duration of the happiness must be considered. Also the quality of it matters: was it derived by pursuing, and coming close to reaching, a worthwhile goal? Such a goal, one of high value, would contribute to the end of helping each individual flourish, would enhance individual well-being.
Thus we see there need not be any conflict between the three most-dominant contemporary normative ethical theories, i.e., character ethics, action-outcome ethics, and duty ethics.
Is it not so - as Dr. M. C. Katz argues in his contemporary ethical theory is the case - that one’s actions are a reflection of one’s inner morality? He has shown, {in both his Basic Ethics: A systematic approach http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz and in the more-recent Ethics for the 21st Century essay http://www.myqol.com/wadeharveyPDFs/ETH ... ENTURY.pdf } that the three dominant normative ethical theories can be generated by an application of more basic analytical tools, i.e., the primary value dimensions of Dr. R. S. Hartman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Hartman Is it reasonable to claim that a theory that can accomplish this is superior to, and more-acceptable, than one which cannot?
Also, one of those value dimensions is used to define what the field of Ethics is. In the Hartman/Katz system, once “Intrinsic Value” is defined, Ethics itself is then defined as: the application of Intrinsic Value [In-value] to the individual, or to a group of individuals. Then the theory proceeds to define and explain “goodness,” “morality,” “integrity,” “conscience,” “hypocrisy,” “altruism,” “war,” “compassion,” “need,” “success,” “moral action,” and other relevant terms, relating them to one another.. Do you know of any other Ethical Theory that does this or is even capable of doing this?
Comments? Questions? Critiques? Evaluations?
There are other happiness 'tricks' such as writing down a blessing that one perceives to have just occurred on a little strip of paper; and saving it, along with other such strips, in a "Happiness Jar," to be read later in the day (when one might be feeling sad.)