• Marvin Katz
    96
    Part I.. Such a new approach is offered here; it aims to make the topic sipler so even a layman can understand ethics, its concerns, and implications:

    url]http:// http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/THE%20STRUCTURE%20OF%20ETHICS.pdf [/url]
    If you are reading this it is safe to assume you are alive. If the question came up, “Do you want to continue living?” under normal circumstances many, if not most, would answer: “Yes, I want to live, and I want to live well.” An empirical survey would find that most normal people want to be healthy, and they want to be content. They would like to have some leisure time to enjoy, and they want to be able to freely pursue a freely-chosen project, a game, a sport, or a hobby. If given a choice, most want harmonious human relationships.

    For that Ethics is necessary. It shows how to achieve those goals, how to get ‘into the flow’, how to use one’s capacities, how to express ‘the inner artist.’ It teaches you how to be fully yourself. You, I, and everyone – we all need Ethics. This means we all need to know our SEIs as well as we know our ABCs. Study Ethics and you will understand what SEI means as well as the justification for it. See:
    http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf

    We are informed by A. Aoudjit, in an article published in the journal Philosophy Now, that some philosophers, including Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, claim it is possible to deal effectively with moral problems like those encountered in bioethics by relying on four basic principles. [These principles, as you now understand if you have carefully read The Structure of Ethics, have been derived by deduction within the framework of the Unified Theory of Ethics.]
    These moral principles are Do no harm (avoid hurting others if possible); Autonomy (allowing others - both men and women - to make their own decisions according to their own personal life plans); promoting goodness; and justice -- which, of course, includes treating others fairly. These concepts have received justification within the Ethical system offered here, the Hartman/Katz theory of Ethics.
    ...To be continued.

    Questions? Comments?
  • Cuthbert
    999
    I feel as if the world is grieving and someone just breezed in to cheer us all up. We could probably do with a hobby and also let's not spoil other people's hobbies. All good as far as it goes. But who is the text addressing and for what? I'm a layman. But even I (a mere layman) can spot a slightly patronising tone here I think?
  • Joshs
    3.9k
    These moral principles are Do no harm (avoid hurting others if possible); Autonomy (allowing others - both men and women - to make their own decisions according to their own personal life plans); promoting goodness; and justice -- which, of course, includes treating others fairly. These concepts have received justification within the Ethical system offered here, the Hartman/Katz theory of Ethics.Marvin Katz

    ‘Do unto others’ or put via its inverse ‘Do not do unto others’. Sounds like your theory of ethics links back to this Golden Rule. From a moral relativist standpoint , the limitation of objective-based ethical systems is that they assume the ability to nail down non-local interpretations of what constitutes the just, the good, the harmful and the fair. Like most moral systems, it rests on the assumption of personal blame and bad intentions rather than on good intentions that are filtered through an alien interpretive framework. In other words, we impose a normative scheme, blaming others’ alleged bad intentions rather than our own failure to understand a difference in worldview.
  • T Clark
    9.8k
    ‘Do unto others’ or put via its inverse ‘Do not do unto others’.Joshs

    With all the effort and argument put into ethics, I've never found anything better than the Golden Rule. Easy to understand, easy to modify to fit changing situations, easy to apply. Actually, it's not necessarily easy to apply. It's what you're supposed to do, not necessarily what you want to do, what's easy to do, or what's immediately best for you.
  • Possibility
    2.7k
    These moral principles are Do no harm (avoid hurting others if possible); Autonomy (allowing others - both men and women - to make their own decisions according to their own personal life plans); promoting goodness; and justice -- which, of course, includes treating others fairly. These concepts have received justification within the Ethical system offered here, the Hartman/Katz theory of Ethics.Marvin Katz

    What’s new about this approach? That it’s generated by mathematical or computerised consensus? I don’t see much difference in your approach that improves on what already exists - indeed, what has been attempted for thousands of years already. You’re just refining an existing, inefficient ethical system that prioritises the false goals of survival, autonomy and some dominant (if not absolute) sense of the ‘good’. By your own admission, your ethical system remains relative to the prevailing worldview, and is still abandoned the moment these priorities appear to be under threat.

    So, I’m not convinced this is really an ethical system - it seems to be just another moral system cloaked in ethical terms.

    It's what you're supposed to do, not necessarily what you want to do, what's easy to do, or what's immediately best for you.T Clark

    Kind of sums it up.
  • Joshs
    3.9k
    With all the effort and argument put into ethics, I've never found anything better than the Golden Rule.T Clark

    I would modify the golden rule to read ‘think others’ motives the way they themselves think these motives.’

    The point here is that the golden rule’s concept of ‘doing’ is utterly worthless without an effective way to understand the link between behavior and perspective. If I fail to understand the other’s perspectivefrom their vantage , I have no choice but to impugn their motives. I declare them to have ‘done wrongly unto others’ when in fact all they have ‘done’ is behavior according to ways of thinking I am unable to grasp. So the golden rule is a hostile screed that blames the other for one’s own inadequate insight into their thinking. This push for conformity passes for ‘ethics’.
  • Gnomon
    2.6k
    What’s new about this approach?Possibility
    The referenced article in Philosophy Now magazine says, "My contention in this article is that we need a paradigm shift in our conception of truth that will return us to the philosophical insight that the highest truths are those concerning 'the good'." Apparently the author believes that our general concept of Truth, has shifted from a focus on general Wisdom to emphasis on specific Facts. Likewise, the OP seems to be proposing, not a new revelation of absolute Truth, but merely a return to a less Pragmatic, and more Idealistic, frame for viewing knowledge & values : e.g. ultimate values to guide our implementation of proximate evaluations of Good & Evil.

    I get the impression that theoretical philosophers are getting tired of kow-towing to practical scientists on what used to be their private domain : questions of Right & Wrong ; Good & Bad, Of course, Ethical Systems are never universal or infallible, but originally they aspired to Absolute Truth. Now, modernity has become rather cynical about such impossible dreams. So, "what's new" is actually old : back to the basics of Ethics. :smile:

    PS__Scientific "objective fact" is different from Philosophical "universal truth", not so much in its goals, but in its methods. (disclaimer : I haven't read the HKUoTE)


    A framework is a practice or design that can be repeatedly applied to
    solving problems. The Hartman/Katz Unified Theory of Ethics is such a
    framework: It is a theoretical frame-of-reference that orders and
    explains the relevant data.

    http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/THE%20STRUCTURE%20OF%20ETHICS.pdf
  • L'éléphant
    851
    These moral principles are Do no harm (avoid hurting others if possible); Autonomy (allowing others - both men and women - to make their own decisions according to their own personal life plans); promoting goodness; and justice -- which, of course, includes treating others fairly.Marvin Katz
    While I agree with your OP, I don't see how a new approach to ethics, which here doesn't provide new insights, is necessary. I mean I think you're already on the right path, but it's not new approach.

    What's SEI? Sorry, I just had an argument with my computer who's refusing to download the pdf for possible malicious content. (I'm not kidding -- that's the computer's attitude)
  • Paulm12
    117

    With all the effort and argument put into ethics, I've never found anything better than the Golden Rule
    I totally agree. I think the basic principle can even be extended in a higher order sense too-we want others to treat us the way we want to be treated, so we should treat others the way they want to be treated. But in absence of knowledge of what the other person wants, using our own desires is a pretty good starting point. And most of the time, there is plenty of agreement.
  • Tom Storm
    5k
    This push for conformity passes for ‘ethics’.Joshs

    I always thought the point of ethics was a push for conformity - to build a kind of standardised code of conduct. And people will always quibble about what's in scope and what's not. A blunt tool.

    I appreciate your point about varying perspectives or value systems between people, but how does one respond to sexual assault, killing or theft (for instance) though the lens of the notions below?

    If I fail to understand the other’s perspective from their vantage , I have no choice but to impugn their motives.Joshs

    In other words, we impose a normative scheme, blaming others’ alleged bad intentions rather than our own failure to understand a difference in worldview.Joshs

    Executing gay people (for instance) may make sense to an Islamic fundamentalist worldview, but how are we to respond to this? Is it possible to understand the other person's perspective or experience which led to them to radically different ethical behaviour/standards from others? And does this deal appropriately with behaviour where others are harmed (from our perspective)?
  • T Clark
    9.8k
    hostile screedJoshs

    I've heard people reject the Golden Rule as appropriate ethics or morals, but I've never heard someone get so passionate about it.
  • Joshs
    3.9k
    I've heard people reject the Golden Rule as appropriate ethics or morals, but I've never heard someone get so passionate about itT Clark

    Blame it on my mentor , psychologist George Kelly. He defined hostility as the attempt to force a round peg into a square hole, which is what I think ethical norms amount to.
  • Marvin Katz
    96
    Thank you, Cuthbert, for suggesting that I cheered someone up, for that is my purpose if life. ...want to make people laugh, or even smile since that is good for one's health. Staying healthy and strong -- according to ancient Zen teachings I learned about while doing research for Ethics, the new paradigm alluded to in my manuscripts -- equips one to be in a better position to be of service to others, to create value, to help others to rise, to lift up the less-fortunate ...all of which means: to be ethical.

    My writings, if you study them carefully, do indeed, Tom, give homage to the Golden Rule! In fact, it is mentioned early in my latest scribbles, that STRUCTURE OF ETHICS booklet. That text can be read through in a couple of hours. The mention was made at the end of the first chapter wherein some maxims were spoken of. One of them was: "If you want others to treat you decently, be sure, starting now, that you treat people decently!"

    To Joshs and to Possibility I would respond: while most people can't say what the latest definitions of "photons," "force," and/or "gravity" are in Physics, they do know enough Physics to flip on a light switch when they want some light. I am attempting to cooperate with those who want to see a better, more-effective Ethical theory; so I invite everyone here - including you guys - to help me build one. There is no good reason I know of why Ethics can'[t take its place beside, and be an antidote to, Physics. They both deal with Nature ...human nature and physical nature respectively. Science, when applied by designers and engineers, solves problems. It works!! Certain events persist: gravity works. And harmony in human affairs works. A good Ethical Theory, when taken seriously and applied in life, will encourage harmony; it will solve (or even head off) problems.

    If anyone here will currently or some day be a teacher, instructor or tutor, I offer in my writings material for their curriculum.

    My theory in contrast to what Josshs says it does - - does NOT end up " blaming others’ alleged bad intentions rather than our own failures." Moralists do that, and I warn in THE STRUCTURE essay "Do not be a moralist!!" It is the opposite of having humility -- a quality which a person of good character would likely have.

    And thank you so much, Gnomon, for calling attention to my most-recent opus, THE STRUCTURE manuscript ... so that critics who say there is nothing new about the new paradigm can see for themselves, if they bother to read it over, that it is getting ethical theory ready to have Ethics be a science - by presenting new more-precise definitions to key concepts in ethics that have been, up to now, rather vague and ambiguous. I have in mind terms such as "Ethics" and "morality." Also, thanks verymuch for your brilliant "PS__Scientific "objective fact" is different from Philosophical "universal truth", not so much in its goals, but in its methods."
    And I want to remind everyone of the constant reference I make to how this framework and its definitions are highly-tentative and subject to change, especially to revision that improves them!

    Part II will be coming up soon, so I plea: pessimists and critics save your negativities until the post is completed:!:
    p.s. Part II is done and is posted below; if you care to better understand where I'm coming from, look for it, and check out the References it gives to you.
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    There is a problem with the golden rule, which takes away its shine. What if I don't mind getting into a fight, if something is stolen of me, or that someone pisses in my honey. Is it okay then for me to get in a fight, steal stuff, or piss in someone's honey?
  • T Clark
    9.8k
    I've heard people reject the Golden Rule as appropriate ethics or morals, but I've never heard someone get so passionate about it
    — T Clark

    Blame it on my mentor , psychologist George Kelly. He defined hostility as the attempt to force a round peg into a square hole, which is what I think ethical norms amount to.
    Joshs

    So, if I were to suggest that people should show each other respect and compassion and should treat them fairly, would that get your dander up too?
  • T Clark
    9.8k
    I totally agree. I think the basic principle can even be extended in a higher order sense too-we want others to treat us the way we want to be treated, so we should treat others the way they want to be treated. But in absence of knowledge of what the other person wants, using our own desires is a pretty good starting point. And most of the time, there is plenty of agreement.Paulm12

    In all situations, I would like to be treated with consideration, respect, and fairness, so, in order to meet the requirements of the Golden Rule, I will try to treat people the same way. It doesn't mean I should give them Cheetos and sloppy joes for dinner because that's what I want.
  • Hillary
    1.9k


    And what if a person doesn't want or need to have consideration, fairness, or respect? How does he/she apply the golden rule? Should they nevertheless apply it to you?
  • T Clark
    9.8k
    And what if a person doesn't want or need to have consideration, fairness, or respect? How does he/she apply the golden rule? Should they nevertheless apply it to you?Hillary

    I didn't say that treating people with consideration, fairness, and respect was the same as following the golden rule.
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    I didn't say that treating people with consideration, fairness, and respect was the same as following the golden rule.T Clark

    The GR means that you treat people as you wanna be treated yourself?
  • T Clark
    9.8k
    The GR means that you treat people as you wanna be treated yourself?Hillary

    Not interested in a nitpicky argument.
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    Not interested in a nitpicky argument.T Clark

    Neither am I. Gnight!
  • Joshs
    3.9k
    So, if I were to suggest that people should show each other respect and compassion and should treat them fairly, would that get your dander up too?T Clark

    I would argue that everyone everywhere thinks that this is the way they always try to treat others. That they are the ‘right’ ways to treat people is built into the meaning of terms like ‘fair’, ‘ respect’ , ‘compassion’ They are empty truisms. They are just ways of saying we should treat people the way we should treat people. Anyone who claims that they should not treat someone in particular this way will justify their actions by asserting that the other didn’t deserve their respect or compassion.
    We don’t need to be reminded of an empty truism , as if they actually offered something substantive we didn’t already know. We need to do something much, much harder, and which runs against our instincts. That is to attempt to grasp the perspective of someone who we believe violates our ethical norms, such that we can come to realize that there was in fact no violation of the empty golden rule.
  • Tom Storm
    5k
    I generally think ethics is about our desire for social order and predictability, a product of our worldviews. Whether this is 'good' or not I can't say.

    But what do you propose as an alternative to ideas like 'respect'? Presumably you believe that in general robbing and killing people is inappropriate? If we hold that this judgement (shall we say?) is a perspective (which may well be true) what of it? What is the workable alternative to these kinds of formulations in the current world? Do we accept all behavior in the name of anti-foundationalism?
  • Agent Smith
    7.6k
    There is a problem with the golden rule, which takes away its shine. What if I don't mind getting into a fight, if something is stolen of me, or that someone pisses in my honey. Is it okay then for me to get in a fight, steal stuff, or piss in someone's honey? — Hillary

    :snicker: The point to all these rules is to get it right about (say) 99% of the time in your interactions with other people. The fact of rules being statistical in nature was never made explicit. I don't know why. Something we ought to think about, oui?
  • I like sushi
    3.9k
    Ethics is unethical and morality is immoral.
  • Christoffer
    1.4k
    An empirical survey would find that most normal peopleMarvin Katz

    This is a problem with the argument though... who's "normal"? Excluding any purely metaphysically deterministic arguments for free will, in terms of psychology, we rarely have free will and therefore we rarely know what we want or need. What about people who have mental illnesses that prohibit them to understand what is "good" for them? We might think that's fringe, but there are a lot more people in the world with a mental inability to grasp "good" for themselves and others. So any axiom about "good" in the argument tends to fail as the definition is too loose.

    This is why I believe that epistemic responsibility needs to be part of any ethical argument. There has to be some rational thought put into any moral decision so that if any axiom of "good for oneself and others" is used as a starting point, it needs to filter through epistemic responsibility in order to fully understand the consequence of a moral choice. You can decide what is "good" for someone else only when you have taken the responsibility to evaluate that person's needs, wants, and definition of good as well as the necessary mental capacity for fully understanding the consequences of their choices.

    A person might fully believe that hitting their child is good for them as they will turn out good in the future because of it. It might be a fully convinced concept that hitting the child establishes necessary tools for them to survive when they have grown up. So the concept of "good" in this situation becomes corrupted. The only way to understand the moral choice for that parent is to filter that concept of "good" through epistemic responsibility, i.e researching enough about if that act is in fact good or if it's immoral and not good. That's why epistemic responsibility functions to fine-tune any axiomatic idea within the context of a morally shifting world.
  • Marvin Katz
    96
    Part II.
    The concept, morality, is now a term in a system; it is to be understood as a measure of the degree to which an individual lives up to the self-immposed moral standard (or set of such moral principles), as well as how effectively he or she applies the set of standards to daily life:

    If one expresses the principle(s) in everyday life, then one rates being described as having high morality. Also, and equally-important, morality in this new paradigm now indicates growth and moral- development throughout life. It recommends that we keep growing morally by adding new standards to live by as we progress through life – and actually live by them, practice them! Furthermore,morality is based on creating value by gaining agreement as to the wisdom of a set of standards which indicate how we should live together with the aim of a quality life for everyone. These standards are highly-tentative (and subject-to-improvement.) Yet people will often choose to base these principles upon values such as peace, justice, love and cooperation.

    It is a testable hypothesis that those who form the habit of valuing Intrinsically are likely to design better systems and norms that enable us to do more with less time, energy, and resources. We want to be somewhat efficient, but not to the extent that we trample on individuals.
    We are now discussing social ethics.

    Every society ought to make education, therapy, and opportunity freely available. Every ethical society will. To hamper the right to vote is sufficient cause to label the society that does that as unethical. Social Justice is a part of Justice, in general, and justice is a part of ethics. This is explained and analyzed in the first portion of A Unified Theory of Ethics, which is in four parts, and is written in dialog form as a literary device

    In contrast, a government or administration that restricts the opportunity for its citizens, or its group members, to get education is unethical.
    If the society subjugates its citizens it is unethical. If it denies the opportunity for its members to get therapy it is unethical too. It then is most-unlikely to engage in effective action.
    Effective action is action done with the aim of providing a quality life for all concerned. The latter is ‘the ultimate purpose’ of this ethical system.

    If the society subjugates its citizens it is unethical. If it denies the opportunity for its members to get therapy it is unethical too. The Buffalo, NY mass murderer when he was 17 gave people plenty of signs that he was mentally disturbed and was a potential nazi. Sufficient heed was not taken because people didn’t know Ethics. Let us counteract such ignorance by teaching the main lessons in the STRUCTURE booklet, along with the improved definition of morality presented here.

    In sum, I have made several predictions which can be experimentally tested, and replicated. This is good scientific procedure.

    And, as members of this Philosophy Forum realize, Philosophy is the “mother of all the sciences.” It precedes them and generates them.

    Human beings ignore science at their peril.

    To understand Ethics better and more clearly, see:Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course. (2007) : - http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/Ethics_A_College_Course.pdf
    And to delve into Ethics more deeply, be sure to also take in this enjoyable read, this conversation on so many themes and concerns within value-theory and Ethics:
    http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/A%20UNIFIED%20THEORY%20OF%20ETHICS.pdf
  • Joshs
    3.9k
    But what do you propose as an alternative to ideas like 'respect'? Presumably you believe that in general robbing and killing people is inappropriate? If we hold that this judgement (shall we say?) is a perspective (which may well be true) what of it? What is the workable alternative to these kinds of formulations in the current world? Do we accept all behavior in the name of anti-foundationalism?Tom Storm

    Protecting ourselves from behavior we consider harmful isnt an issue. We figure out all kinds of ways to do that already when it comes to acts of nature , instinctive behavior on the part of our pets, uncontrolled actions by those with brain damage or psychosis, etc. There are all kinds of ways of separating ourselves from such dangers that do not involve blame and punishment.
  • Tom Storm
    5k
    There are all kinds of ways of separating ourselves from such dangers that do not involve blame and punishment.Joshs

    I am with you about finding blame and punishment unhelpful and often horrendous. But can you expand briefly on the kinds of ways you are referring to here?
  • Cuthbert
    999
    The Buffalo, NY mass murderer when he was 17 gave people plenty of signs that he was mentally disturbed and was a potential nazi. Sufficient heed was not taken because people didn’t know Ethics. Let us counteract such ignorance by teaching the main lessons in the STRUCTURE booklet, along with the improved definition of morality presented here.Marvin Katz

    You are suggesting that more people reading your booklet and understanding definitions would have prevented Buffalo. No, that's not possible, you just appear to be suggesting that. Let me read it again. Same. You really are suggesting that. Let me try again. Same. Please stick to blithe generalisations and not bring in real people's suffering. As I said, the world is grieving. Breezy 'chin up, get a hobby, read the theory' advice doesn't cut it but is quite harmless. 'Read my booklet to learn how to prevent mass murders' goes to another disturbingly disturbed level.
  • Marvin Katz
    96
    Hi, Cuthbert
    What I am suggesting is that if people knew Ethics, it could help to sensitize their conscience. wake it up, so that when they encounter a disturbed young person, they steer him or her toward help, toward getting therapy. If he already has been brainwashed into some nazi cult, inform the feds or local authorities to keep an eye on the party, which entails not letting him, nor his parents, buy a gun, taser, or some lethal weapon! Those who released him into society have blood on their hands.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.