Thanks for the encouragement Dr Katz. But I am afraid there are way too many issues of morality in our current society, to even know where to begin in addressing them. This is why I generally direct my attention to metaphysics instead, the problems are more confined. — Metaphysician Undercover

Did you manage to solve any of those problems? If so, tell me about it, so that perhaps I would learn something that could be used in improving and enhancing ethical theory. viz., the Unified Theory of Ethics.

@Marvin Katz

Is your Unified Theory of Ethics brand new i.e. has no links to Aristotle, Bentham, Mill, and Kant?

Is your Unified Theory of Ethics brand new i.e. has no links to Aristotle, Bentham, Mill, and Kant? — Agent Smith

Go ahead and read up on them! (Why not add to your list Heraclitus, Kierkegaard, Bradley, Russell, and Bergson, Etc., Etc.?)
I decided not to use an approach rooted in, and tracing, the history of ideas. I did want the framework to be new, and to be more to the point, and more precise (rather overly-vague.). In the Bibliography of the Structure booklet I indicate some of the new, more-recent insights in the field of Ethics which I am attempting to weave into a synthesis.

I would love to read up on any novel system of ethics, the ones floating around don't seem to be upto the mark.

Could you provide a synopsis of it? I have ADHD - short attention span! :sad:

Could you provide a synopsis of it? — Agent Smith

I'll try. Let me know if it helped, okay?


Here is a summary (in capsule form) as an attempt to show how the new paradigm differs from what is conventional in Moral Philosophy classes or in Ethics classes.

I'd like to hear your comments or questions on these basic points.

1. "Ethics" and "morality" are now redefined, and are to be understood as two distinct concepts in the new approach to Ethics, which I wrote about more in a previous Discussion. Details will be found in the References to which I earlier offered links.

"Ethics" (in the updated paradigm about which you are inquiring) refers to creating value in human interactions. It is also a term referring to the study of the implications that follow from the practice of expressing the new perspective. This perspective is seen when an individual highly-values another individual. This valuation is known technically as "Intrinsic valuation." When you value someone this way you at least show respect (as much as you can - depending on your capacity to do so.) Then you go even further.

3. To go further is to, for example, give a sincere compliment, make people smile or feel good about themselves, boost a person up in some manner, help the person out, help him or her to gain opportunity, find a way too be of service, be considerate of his or her feelings ....or, in some way manage to enhance value.

"Morality," in this new paradigm, means being true to your true self . How? The theory indicates that an individual is to develop increased morality by adding, throughout life, new positive ethical standards to those you live by. And by actually living up to these guidelines one is thus setting a good example for others. This is a process of moral growth that is to continue throughout your entire lifetime. Then one is to share these ideas with others and arrive at a consensus on them. The agreement would be that they are worthwhile for more than one of us - even our entire community - to hold as guidelines to live by. These principles and standards are not absolutes; they are subject to revision and upgrading.

Among other moral principles one may learn about in the Unified Theory of Ethics are these: The Inclusivity Principle and The Consistency Principle. The latter informs us: Don’t have one standard for yourself and another for others. Be consistent! The former indicates that the ethical procedure is to extend your Ethical radius on your moral compass: include as many people as you possibly can into your in-group. Be inclusive!

From the above points being understood and experienced in daily life; note that all the rest of ethics- [such as the principle ‘Do no harm!’ may be derived. All the rest follows.


Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the human species.

@Marvin Katz

1. Inclusivity principle. :up: I suggest that we have too broad a definition of "human" but only as an ad interim measure; it's the least worst option in my humble opinion.

2. Consistency principle. :up: Kantian in spirit. I propose that this to be provisional in the specifics; after all we need to bear in mind the possibility that new contradictory evidence may come to light.

That's all from me for now. Danke for the reply. It was illuminating in so many different ways.

[

2. Consistency principle. :up: Kantian in spirit. — Agent Smith

Thank you for calling my attention to this fact. It is indeed the sort of thing that Kant would say.

If you had someone read aloud [for you] the text of the first link listed in a discussion on "Why A New Approach ...", namely THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS, you may recall that it informs us that the ultimate aim of Ethics (both theory and practice) is a Quality Life for one and all. And, as you know, "a Quality Life" includes happiness.
Nence, since J.S. Mill advocates "the greatest happiness - - - -" it is fair to say that this new approach to Ethics I am proposing is 'in the spirit of Mill.' So not only Kant, but Mill also. And, of course, one immediately notices the influence of Aristotle's ethica,, in my emphasis on the necessity of having a good character.
Hence the Unified Theory of Ethics does in that way pay homage to Aristotle, Kant,, and Mill; it follows in their tradition. Also in the link I'll offer here see the section on Henry Sidgwick in the chapter on What Is Morality. http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/THE%20STRUCTURE%20OF%20ETHICS.pdf

For Kant happiness/sorrow (consequences) is either secondary or irrelevant to morality. He claims that there's "something (inherently) wrong" about immoral actions such as mendacity, theft, and murder. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that "something (inherently) wrong" is, as per Kant, inconsistency, a synonym for violation of the 3^rd law of logic viz. the law of noncontradiction.

For Kant happiness/sorrow (consequences) is either secondary or irrelevant to morality. He claims that there's "something (inherently) wrong" about immoral actions such as mendacity, theft, and murder. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that "something (inherently) wrong" is, as per Kant, inconsistency, a synonym for violation of the 3rd law of logic viz. the law of noncontradiction. — Agent Smith

When I coined the words"Consistency Principle" it was intended to call attention to the opposite conduct, to a variety of moral inconsistency. Wwhat I had in mind was one sort of hypocrisy, namely, having double standards: expecting others to be ethical when one is not ethical himself.
I notice this trait a lot when I hear politicians spout off. Lately this hypocrisy seems to occur in members of one Party much more than members of the other major Party. I cold give specific examples but I shall refrain.

When I coined the words"Consistency Principle" it was intended to call attention to the opposite conduct, to a variety of moral inconsistency. Wwhat I had in mind was one sort of hypocrisy, namely, having double standards: expecting others to be ethical when one is not ethical himself.
I notice this trait a lot when I hear politicians spout off. Lately this hypocrisy seems to occur in members of one Party much more than members of the other major Party. I cold give specific examples but I shall refrain. — Marvin Katz

Si, si, quite unfortunate, this.

I hope we're not conflating entitlement which is legit from favoritism which isn't. Jeff Bezos' children are entitled to his wealth and Amazon.com is his property to do with as he wishes and pleases, but Putin is a different story.

Putin is a different story. — Agent Smith

Putin is committing pure evil. His conduct is as far from living ethically as one can get. That is why it is fair to designate him as a sociopath.
He has put his conscience into a deep sleep, so much so that it seems as if he has no conscience. Iif it could be awakened, it would inform him of the enormous amount of value of which he is depriving himself by desecrating human life. Conscious human life, having personality, is infinitely valuable; he is losing out on all this value! Thus he is an ignorant stupid sucker, as well as being extremely dangerous.

He must be stopped and somehow counteracted. Sanctioning him and his administration, and his corrupt friends, was a good idea on Biden's part. What would you suggest? What can be done to stop him from waging unprovoked warfare, mass murder on innocent people.

I have a feeling that Putin's hung up on the past glory of the Russian empire - he, according to reports, likens himself to Tsar Peter and wishes to restore Russia to her former role as a global power. Unfortunately for some folks, Putin is willing to do this at all costs, meaning he won't let anything, not even morality, get in his way.

It's worth mentioning that Putin is ex-KGB, an espionage division much like the CIA of USA, and we all know for a spies ethics is the last thing on their minds - a good person is a liability rather than an asset in this particular line of work. Whatever moral compass Putin once possessed was taken from him and smashed to pieces in the KGB training program.