Philosophy Now Forum

I overheard a graduate student in Philosophy say “When I think of ethics, especially insofar as I have any moral intuition of it, I think of things we ought not do, like lying, cheating, stealing, or things we should do, like helping others in need, or giving them respect.” This inspired me to argue as follows:

1) Let’s assume - as some philosophers do - for the sake of discussion, that the vast majority of individuals ought to get respect - but if we can't bring ourselves to give them any, we can at least be courteous and polite due to our own good character. People do have a need for recognition, so an ethical person may bestow some acknowledgement on those he or she encounters. Let's assume we are to respect ourselves as well as others. Then wouldn’t it follow that we are to avoid lying, cheating, stealing?

2) And wouldn’t it follow that we should help others in need if we are able to? If we properly define the perspective that is the ethical one, we won’t have to make so many assumptions. At the end of this post I shall offer such a definition. Right now, I’m leading up to it.

3) Let’s assume that Justice is a part of Ethics, that it is relevant to Ethics. Then wouldn’t we be fair in our dealings with others, and wouldn’t we want to be in balance ourself? Wouldn’t it follow that we give others their due? Wouldn’t it follow that we want a just society - one that distributes its resources in a fair manner?

4) Wouldn’t it follow that we would honor contracts and keep implied promises?

5) Doesn’t Ethics offer any guidance for Political Science? Should politics be free of ethics?? If politics should be ethical, then wouldn’t some principles of Social Ethics overlap with certain of the principles of Political Science? And wouldn’t the expectation of a just society be part of what ethics is?

6) If we can agree to that, then doesn’t an ethical principle start to emerge to the effect that there should be, in an ethical society, a just distribution of quality of life. Maximize the qualities of life (values of well-being) of all conscious members of our own species, at least

And if we genuinely care for others, wouldn’t we give a strong priority on increasing the qualities of life of the worst-off individuals, unless this is at the expense of much more well-being of others. Does it not seem reasonable that some such conclusion would eventually be reached?

7) And wouldn’t we want to protect biodiversity for it is unique and irreplaceable? Doesn’t it help add value to life? And isn’t it thus in keeping with Ethics, which directs us to maximize value for conscious living individuals. Yes. Don’t we want to live in the “peaks” of Dr. Sam Harris’ Moral Landscape, rather than in the “valleys”? In other words, don’t we want a high quality of human life, for one and all? Doesn’t his Consequentialism have anything useful to offer for Ethics? I believe it does. Even as I hold that modern Virtue Theory has even more to offer. Soon I shall start a thread with the title: "A Ranking of the traditional Academic Schools of Ethics." Watch for it.

(8) As Arthur Jackson points out in his recent paperback entitled How to Live the Good Life: A User's Guide for Modern Humans, it is the set of beliefs we hold that makes us moral and ethical. If we have stupid, self-defeating ideas we will not progress. We are then liable to put short-term goals over long-term benefit. We are liable to value greed, to be corrupt, to seek power over others. Instead seek to have a good character. Honor and respect every individual. That is one of the first of the ethical principles derived from a new approach to Ethics. Study the writings in Ethics of Marvin C. Katz, Ph.D., especially his booklet, A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS. You may either google it, or use this link: http://tinyurl.com/27pzhbf

Here are links to some of the sequels to his Unified Theory of Ethics: For the booklet ETHICAL ADVENTURES click - http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... NTURES.pdf

For the paper ASPECTS OF ETHICS, see:
http://wadeharvey.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/A ... ics%20.pdf

Especially note the list of ethical principles at the end of this essay.

9) Here are some further ethical principles that will help you discover the meaning of life: Treasure your individuality. Do work you love to do. Aim for excellence. Know that we are all in this together; and keep in mind that what helps the next person, if it really helps him, also helps you. We all do better if we ALL do better. We stand or fall together. Be inclusive as to who you consider to be in your in-group. Extend your Ethical Radius until it includes more and more people. Empower people 'from the bottom up' rather than waiting for a 'trickle-down.' As you do this life will become increasingly meaningful – and you may even find that you are happier too.

I totally agree with those who argue that we ought to get back to basics. All those with a high degree of morality are humble. That follows from being true to one's true self.

Extending a hand of friendship and living in harmony are fundamental concepts in Social Ethics. Nurturing our planet is basic to our own survival and is one way to upgrade and add value to the quality of our lives. And kindness and service are attributes of the moral individual - who knows his ethics. Here is the most basic thought to keep in mind – it is the very definition of Ethics.

Ethics is the field of knowledge that arises when Intrinsic Value is the perspective applied to individuals. To practice Ethics we would thus Intrinsically-value others: we would see them as of indefinitely-high value, and behave accordingly. All the rest logically follows from that. I use the term "Intrinsic Value" in Robert S. Hartman's sense, rather than that of John Dewey. It entails the valuer getting involved with and in what he is valuing; it means intense focus and appreciation of the thing or person valued. I'll be glad to elaborate further if anyone is interested.....

If we see others from this perspective, we would then 'do no harm'; would not indulge in genderism, rankism, racism, speciesism, ageism, sexism nor any other form of abuse or indifference. Out of respect for ourselves we would immunize ourselves against personal corruption. We would focus more on our long-term benefit and would not be as likely to succumb to short-term temptations. We would want to form life-affirming habits,. We would want to make the world work for everyone.

I might add this thought: I am not averse to political action that seeks to have ethical principles implemented,

I have here been offering principles that may be deduced from the theory - I offer a model, and gave some of its "bottom line" conclusions. They follow reasonably from the original axioms

Surely I have said enough to provoke a comment.... What are your thoughts on this topic?

prof wrote: Doesn’t his Consequentialism have anything useful to offer for Ethics? I believe it does. Even as I hold that modern Virtue Theory has even more to offer

I have never really understood how virtue theory - or any other ethical theory - cannot avoid grounding its values on some form of consequentialism. What makes a virtue an ethical virtue if the practice of it does not have positive consequences for some being? If this is something that is possible I would be interested in understanding how it can be achieved.

Here are some further ethical principles that will help you discover the meaning of life: Treasure your individuality. Do work you love to do. Aim for excellence. Know that we are all in this together; and keep in mind that what helps the next person, if it really helps him, also helps you. We all do better if we ALL do better. We stand or fall together. Be inclusive as to who you consider to be in your in-group. Extend your Ethical Radius until it includes more and more people. Empower people 'from the bottom up' rather than waiting for a 'trickle-down.' As you do this life will become increasingly meaningful – and you may even find that you are happier too.

Thanks for the post. Some initial thoughts on one segment...

Do ethical principles help you discover the meaning of life ?

Aren't these 'commands' rather than principles. How can following someone else's commands make (one's) life increasingly meaningful; how would it follow that anyone ( everyone ) would become happier ?

'Do work you love to do' - not always possible. Wouldn't it make people less unhappy if they 'loved the work they do' - i.e. perhaps a change of attitude from hating to some kind of an acceptance.
'Know that we are all in this together' - in 'what' together ? Life ? Bed? Unhappiness? Satisfaction?
'We all do better if we ALL do better' - please clarify.
What on earth is an 'Ethical Radius' - an aura of 'goodness'. Sounds like love in a bubble...
How is having an 'in-group' and excluding others being 'ethical' ? Doesn't this contradict the earlier 'command' ?

marjoramblues wrote:

Here are some further ethical principles that will help you discover the meaning of life: Treasure your individuality. Do work you love to do. Aim for excellence. Know that we are all in this together; and keep in mind that what helps the next person, if it really helps him, also helps you. We all do better if we ALL do better. We stand or fall together. Be inclusive as to who you consider to be in your in-group. Extend your Ethical Radius until it includes more and more people. Empower people 'from the bottom up' rather than waiting for a 'trickle-down.' As you do this life will become increasingly meaningful – and you may even find that you are happier too.

Thanks for the post. Some initial thoughts on one segment...

Do ethical principles help you discover the meaning of life ?

Note the last sentence of that paragraph you quote, where I make a verifiable prediction: "As you do this" (namely, help someone else pursue and reach happiness) "life will become increasingly meaningful – and you may even find that you are happier too."

I hold that the practice of Ethical principles tends to confer upon the practitioner a life that he or she would find to be a meaningful one ...even if no one else acknowledges it. You may be "a prophet without honor..." but strive to live ethically anyway.

marjoramblues wrote:Aren't these 'commands' rather than principles. How can following someone else's commands make (one's) life increasingly meaningful; how would it follow that anyone ( everyone ) would become happier ?

No. They are principles phrased in the imperative mode; dry theory, without some emphasis or emotion infused, is not in general persuasive. Ethics is to be lived and experienced. The Unified Theory teaches that you are to maintain your autonomy. Don't accept a theory just because "I said so." It ought to be reasonable and rational, and preferably meet most of the criteria listed in ETHICAL EXPLORATIONS. There you will find a section on 'What makes an ethics theory a good one?' http://tinyurl.com/22ohd2x
See especially pp. 39-42

marjoramblues wrote:'Do work you love to do' - not always possible. Wouldn't it make people less unhappy if they 'loved the work they do' - i.e. perhaps a change of attitude from hating to some kind of an acceptance.

Yes, I agree. And in the manual by M. C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course, which you can google, there is a chapter on the concept "happiness" wherein he quips: "Success is getting what you want; happiness is wanting what you get." The chapter goes on to say a lot more about happiness, (and about "success") as you will note.

You ask about the comment "We are all in this together" and you ask "In what?"
Life on this planet, a spaceship named "Earth" -- that's what.

If we don't care about a sustainable ecology, or if we don't work to lift people out of extreme misery, we really won't flourish. We may appear to be doing better, as some of the one-per-cent appear to be, but those they care about will eventually be living in a more chaotic, more unstable world. Minimize suffering if you can. To that extent we all do better.

marjoramblues wrote:What on earth is an 'Ethical Radius' ...How is having an 'in-group' and excluding others being 'ethical' ? Doesn't this contradict the earlier 'command' ?

To clear up any misunderstanding, it would help if you would check out the section on these very points in ETHICAL ADVENTURES, pp.23-26, a link to which was offered in the original post. The phrase "ethical radius" is not original with me and is to be found in the literature of ethical theory. It is the area swept in as one develops his self-identity, it is all that you are able to identify with - in the sense of involvement - which is one of the meanings of "identify with." We usually would not be unethical toward someone in our in-group. The principle merely suggests we extend it ...as far as we can. For details, though, see the booklet, the essay. It is free of charge, as is befitting ethical dialog. It is fiction, but its subject, Ethics, is not. See: http://tinyurl.com/38zfrh7

Also see LIVING THE GOOD LIFE:
http://tinyurl.com/28mtn56

Also, don't miss this: A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS
http://tinyurl.com/27pzhbf

I have a question about intrinsic value. Is it generally conceiived as a binary (on or off, black or white) quality, or a fuzzy one (coming in percentages or degrees)?

Iintrinsic valuation connotes involvement, deep interest, commitment, unity, etc. It is (in theory and practice) a continuum between the valuer and what s/he is valuing. It is very close to what Husserl called 'Intentionality.'

So it is not on/off. That is characteristic of Systemic Value.

I-Value is NOT a binary quality. Within its own structure, it does come "in percentages or degrees". Dr David Mefford has written about it. He believes ordinal numbers are more suitable than cardinal numbers to talk about it, and Type Theory. See Principia Mathematica for details on the latter concept. The (rather precise) math of Fuzzy Logic could prove to be very helpful here also.

MGL wrote:

prof wrote: Doesn’t his Consequentialism have anything useful to offer for Ethics? I believe it does. Even as I hold that modern Virtue Theory has even more to offer

I have never really understood how virtue theory - or any other ethical theory - cannot avoid grounding its values on some form of consequentialism. What makes a virtue an ethical virtue if the practice of it does not have positive consequences for some being? If this is something that is possible I would be interested in understanding how it can be achieved.

Ethics means rules for distinguishing between right and wrong.Virtue ethics means certain ideals, such as excellence or dedication to the common good, toward which we should strive and which allow the full development of our humanity. These ideals are discovered through thoughtful reflection on what we as human beings have the potential to become. There is even a specialized discipline, research ethics, which studies these norms.

MGL wrote:

prof wrote: Doesn’t his Consequentialism have anything useful to offer for Ethics? I believe it does. Even as I hold that modern Virtue Theory has even more to offer

I have never really understood how virtue theory - or any other ethical theory - cannot avoid grounding its values on some form of consequentialism. What makes a virtue an ethical virtue if the practice of it does not have positive consequences for some being? If this is something that is possible I would be interested in understanding how it can be achieved.

virtue ethics means that are certain ideals, such as excellence or dedication to the common good, toward which we should strive and which allow the full development of our humanity.Virtues are attitudes, dispositions, or character traits that enable us to be and to act in ways that develop this potential.Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues.

stevesmith85 wrote:
Prof: modern Virtue Theory has even more to offer [than consequentialism]

MGL: I have never really understood how virtue theory - or any other ethical theory - cannot avoid grounding its values on some form of consequentialism. What makes a virtue an ethical virtue if the practice of it does not have positive consequences for some being? If this is something that is possible I would be interested in understanding how it can be achieved.

stevesmith85:

Ethics means rules for distinguishing between right and wrong.Virtue ethics means certain ideals, such as excellence or dedication to the common good, toward which we should strive and which allow the full development of our humanity. These ideals are discovered through thoughtful reflection on what we as human beings have the potential to become. There is even a specialized discipline, research ethics, which studies these norms.

virtue ethics means that are certain ideals, such as excellence or dedication to the common good, toward which we should strive and which allow the full development of our humanity.Virtues are attitudes, dispositions, or character traits that enable us to be and to act in ways that develop this potential.Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues.

Thank you for picking up on my comment. I understand what virtues are, but even after thoughtful reflection I can't understand them except by cashing them out in consequentialist terms. What could "common good" mean if it is not just an aggregation of the wellbeing of others and why would we want to have the ethical virtues you list if they did not have the consequence of improving, sustaining or at least not reducing their wellbeing?

What more could virtue theory offer to an understanding of ethics that it has not already had to derive from consequentialism?

We don't have to choose between them since a good ethical theory will be a synthesis of both - plus deontoloty, plus Zen ethics, Buddhist ethics, Shinto ethics, Peter Singer's ethics, ancient Chinese ethics, phenomenological ethics, etc., etc.

Many strands of ethical thought will be woven into the best system of Ethics ...much the same way that Musicology incorporates appreciation of various types of music as part of its study.

Once one has a framework, and a logical meta-ethics, the task then becomes to sharpen up traditional ethical concepts, making them more and more precise - until eventually they are terms connected together by clear relationships, as part of a network comprising the theory. The system should serve to order and explain the data - in this case, the ethical data: happiness, altruism, success, peace, benevolence, creativity, well-being, liberty, compassion, integrity, authenticity, prudence, moral courage, etc.

1) A synthesis of ethical systems needs to be consistent. It therefore could only take the bits from each system which are all compatible.

2) Depending on what is left in and left out, there may be many different ways in which a synthesis is acheived, thus there could be many different synthesised systems to choose from.

3) What criteria would be used to determine which synthesis is the correct one?

4) If you are looking for a meta-ethical synthesis or framework, something that grounds moral statements to reality rather than mere wishful thoughts or abstract entities, you really only need some form of consequentialism. I suspect that all the useful moral intuitions of other ethical systems could be derived from simple consequentialist premises with no need to rely on any elaborate and superfluous axiological account.

MGL wrote:1)... there could be many different synthesised systems to choose from.

Could be.

MGL wrote:3) What criteria would be used to determine which synthesis is the correct one?

The one that explains the most with the least is the elegant one, and is the one that I would select ...for its beauty, if no other reason. I suspect others might likely concur with me on this.

MGL wrote:4) If you are looking for a meta-ethical synthesis or framework, ...you really only need some form of consequentialism. I suspect that all the useful moral intuitions of other ethical systems could be derived from simple consequentialist premises with no need to rely on any elaborate and superfluous axiological account.

Okay, MGL, do it

Build that system, that framework; and if it turns out to be superior, by the criteria mentioned - namely, that it efficiently covers the widest range of data with the least assumptions and deductions from them, and your conclusions turn out to be effective {in that they make for a higher quality of life than does the formal axiological procedure, as shown in my booklets and essays which you have studied}, I'll "buy" it ...I'll switch over to your approach.

Show us. Go ahead.

This is tall order which I suspect my time and capabilities will be unable to match. However, perhaps I could start by making a bash with a few simple premises:

Facts

1) There are conscious beings that pursue a range of goals in life.
2) A goal that must be presumed by all conscious beings pursuing other goals is that of securing sufficient power or means to sustain itself
3) Every being requires a minimum degree of power to sustain itself (and its desire to sustain itself - ie its will to live).

Ethics

4) Competing with our other goals in life is the goal of respecting the goals of others.
5) Ethics is the task of determining to what lengths we go to respect other people's goals and what value we place on them with respect to our own and those of every one else.
6) A key factor in our consideration of the goals of others is determining how critical they are to a person's survival and whether they have sufficient power to realise them. Another factor is the degree to which we have involved ourself in their goals by encouraging expectations of our support for them.
7) Our moral decisions therefore are determined by considering the consequences of our actions in regard to which they respect the goals of others


Perhaps you could provide an example of some moral data which the above cannot "explain"?

MGL wrote:This is tall order which I suspect my time and capabilities will be unable to match. However, perhaps I could start by making a bash with a few simple premises:

...7) Our moral decisions therefore are determined by considering the consequences of our actions in regard to which they respect the goals of others.

Greetings, MGL

A key notion of your theory is the concept of a "consequence."

Would you please be so kind as to give us your philosophical (in contrast to dictionary) definition of the term: consequence. And tell us how you measure it.

Thanks.

Hi prof.


The only philosophical aspect of my undestanding of consequence is to distinguish it from other ethical claims to ground morality ( eg virtue theory, deontology )
It is in relation to this distinction that I cannot see how we are supposed to morally evaluate any action except in terms of its expected consequences. The kind of consequences we are concerned with are those that effect the goals of other sentient beings. When we are engaged in making moral evaluations, we are measuring the relative value of these goals, weighing them in importance relative to our own goals and those of others.

As to how we go about measuring consequences, comparing goals, or measuring their relative values, that is something that is more difficult to do. One can make a few points though.


If you want to be a good person you should:

1) value the goals of others at lease as much if not more than than your own goals.
2) value the goals of others that are more critical to their survival and will to live than other less vital goals.
3) help the least powerful and most vulnerable to realise their critical goals.
4) help those with the greatest respect for others than those that do not.
5) value the goals of others which depend upon your support for which you have implicity or explicitly encouraged its expectation.

Could you now let me know if there is any moral data with which the above does not fit?