• Is it possible to be morally wrong even if one is convinced to do the right thing?
    Just as putting your hand on a hot stove has immediate disciplinary effect, and has moral implications regarding a persons duty to care for their body, committing unjust and immoral acts that don't have an implicit natural disciplinary corollaryintrobert
    Yes they do in fact: Over time they erode the quality-of-life of those who would not do such acts -- or would slip, doing such only occasionally and temporarily. (The latter are folks of good character who, being fallible, sometimes goof up, make stupid mistakes ...and thus become bad characters for the moment.)
    BTW, I like your metaphor: how a bad burn often serves to teach some a lesson; only, though, if they are willing and able to learn. I would like to quote you [in a serious academic paper] but do not know your real name, just your nickname here. Phone me, and we will discuss this further. I live in Skokie. Okay?
  • A 'New' Bill of Rights
    In light of what I learned from Bret Bernhoft I want to modify the definition of "a good government." This definition is an application of the framework entitled a Unified Theory of Ethics. The upgrade reads as follows:
    A good government is one that continuously improves the quality of life of its citizens by enabling them to upgrade voluntarily the life of those around them. It will offer the opportunity for people to vote by referendum on all important matters. It will quickly adopt life-enhancing policies that are working well elsewhere."

    Earlier I wrote about what the United States could learn from Finland. Its Constitution has a provision that provides for the government to be an Employer of Lat Resort if a citizen cannot find work in the private sector that offers better pay and more benefits. Then the government will offer the citizen a job.

    We also can learn from the way Norway conducts its penal system. We can adopt the best ideas from how Finland conducts its Education system; and how the state of Hawaii encourages electric cars by having lots of charging stations readily available. The concept of "success-sharing" is Ethics applied. Let us all now take the wise step of making this concept as one of our personal Moral Principles: "I am devoted to success-sharing."
    We would add this to "Do no harm" and to "Respect others as much as I possibly can." and to "Be kind and considerate; be ready to be helpful." Etc. See the list of suggested moral standards offered in Chapter Three, "What is Morality" in the essay titled THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS. Here is a link to it:
  • A 'New' Bill of Rights
    In the previous post just above, why did I write "campaign or work for it"?

    Because as Kant once said: "Theory without practice" [without applying the theory to life, without experience, or putting the theory into action] "is mere intellectual play."
  • A 'New' Bill of Rights
    Earlier, Josh Alfred called our attention to a visionary book by Peter Joseph.

    From what I've been able to gather so far, these are some of the proposals that author Joseph offers for us to consider ...and if you care, help implement into actuality: he suggests
    More open-source developments;
    evolving to what he calls "a sharing-successes economy";'
    learning from the U.B.I. experiments that are already working out well;
    more Access;
    more Localization;
    use of networked digital feedback, and
    a much-fuller use of Automation ....until eventually all unpleasant work will be done by robots!!!

    Of course - let's not kid ourselves - people today will not immediately discard their profit-driven ways to embrace this vision - nor that of an Ethical World, of which I speak -- without lots of prior education [and maybe even some programmed literature availability, designed for instruction.] They won't rush to gain the benefits Mr. Joseph outlines economy which reduces waste to a minimum ...until they have a deeper understanding, and are inspired by the insight.

    So - everyone - where do you stand on these topics? Can you buy into it? Would you advocate, campaign, or in some way work for it?
    Let's hear your views.
  • A 'New' Bill of Rights

    After you have read, or better yet, studied, my modest scribbles -- that STRUCTURE OF ETHICS paper -- I would appreciate your giving me your impressions, thereby providing the author with some feedback.
    Yes, study it, take notes, and if you find something quotable or memorable, spread the word to your friends and contacts in re the concepts you liked.

    Yours for ethics, Dr. Katz.
  • A 'New' Bill of Rights
    Now is the time for all good persons to come to the aid of their human species! Let’s all make some progress together. Let us co-operate and collaborate on building an ethical world!

    [quote="Josh Alfred;735808[/quote]

    Josh Alfred: Thank you for bringing me up-to-date on what Peter Joseph has been doing lately. He has been involved, constructively, in bringing us all closer to living in a world in which Ethics is applied ...especially in the realm of Economics and a sane distribution (allocation) of resources. He was quite active in what used to be known as 'the zeitgeist movement.' I will definitely get his book, and may write a review of it. I invite the rest of you to do the same. The book's title is The New Human Rights Movement. Happy reading folks!
    Once again, thanks, Josh, for the lead ...when you suggest we peruse this book. Let's trust that it inspires some readers to join that movement, to put it into action.
  • What makes 'The Good Life' good?
    One might say, of a human life, that a good life is one that makes its own judgement of itself wholeheartedly and insightfully. A poor life, by contrast, is always occupied with judgement of others.unenlightened

    Excellent observation! You got that right!!

    As you may have noticed, my writings in Ethics stress the point that to be ethical is to be non-judgmental ethically-speaking A good moral standard, I would argue, is: "I will not morally judge others!"
  • What makes 'The Good Life' good?
    ou asked "What makes the good life good?"
    You then said in your post:
    "a good life will be a highly-meaningful life."
    So is not your answer that it is richness of meaning which makes a good life good? ...Sounds true enough to me.

    Yes. You understand an important part of the case I was making, Yohan. Thank you for the sincere compliment; and for your insight and wisdom.
  • What makes 'The Good Life' good?
    the good life is where you get what you want.Banno

    The goo life is a happy life. And "happiness" is wanting what you get.
    "Success" is getting what you want.

    The beauty of it is: If you choose to be happy as your aim, and you get it -- then you can have both: success AND happiness!
  • A 'New' Bill of Rights
    We have enough resources and wealth to provide for everyone. We choose not to.

    Why? Because those who benefit from massive wealth inequality don’t want it. Then the millions they’ve brainwashed over decades rise to defend their positions.

    What anyone who complains about government leaves out is their commitment to private tyranny and plutocracy.

    I couldn't agree more. You have a good mind, and even better: you have great values, and a clear understanding of facts.

    Finland, in its constitution, guarantees every citizen the right to a job. If they can't find work that will pay them an adequate and reasonable living income, then the government says it will do the responsible thing and give them useful work. Why can't all the other countries do the same? You argue that "we get in our own way" by the extreme inequality we permit to endure. Lately, the Dems with their Inflaction Reduction Act, have raised slightly the tax that the super-wealthy have to pay (as a way for the legislation to be eventually budget neutral. ally, Thatt is some progress. Thus they are complying with the definition of 'good government.'

    We could also learn a lot from the Danes, and the Norwegians. When I visited Denmark the welll-to-do complainedloudly about the 'high taxes,' but when asked if they wanted to live anywhere else they reacted: with a definite "No!!"
  • A 'New' Bill of Rights
    Thank you, Dr. Katz, for the links. I have downloaded "The Structure Of Ethics" PDF, and will read through it now. I am definitely open to learning more about this line of thinking. So, I appreciate your guidance on doing just that.Bret Bernhoft

    Thank you for your constructive response! You are a scholar and a gentleman. Please get back to us with some feedback after you have studied the suggested manuscript. Let us know what you thought of it. Since the kindle edition of it got some very-fine reviews, I believe it was worth the effort to scribble it out. If even one high-school Ethics instructor (or college professor) adopts ideas from it for his/her class, then it will have reached its intended audience.

    p.s. I like your attitude. It is positive; and is an indication that you will go far in life, get results of which one may be proud, and you will be happy and a success -- both.
  • What makes 'The Good Life' good?
    To Banno --- and other Forum members and participants:

    I'm going to attempt to come to the point now. (Tell me if this helps, please.)

    When something that is actual and specific meets up with and matches an ideal we have in mind for things of that sort, we say that there is "value." In other words, a valuable book, for example, would be a book that has properties that match (correspond to) what we picture as the qualities (attributes) that a book book ought to have! Some actual thing, effect, or person that has ALL the properties (rather than merely some) we are likely to judge as "Good." A good meal has everything you believe a meal should have. This applies to a meal or anything else.

    Hence, "a good life" is one that has all the properties of a life that you, the judge, would (as well as most of us) want. Likely that includes: happy memories, mountain-top experiences, quality-time with those you love, time and resources to pursue your favorite hobbies and interests, achievements one could be proud of, etc. [For someone else - who is not as moral and ethical - it might include fame, wealth, notoriety.] What makes the good life "good" is that , from the point of view of the one making the assessment, the life has it all. It's all there!

    One might observe, that to be better than merely good is to be excellent, or outstanding, or unique. ...these values may signify an even-further richness of qualities.

    To review, when the actual matches the ideal there is value. When something has all, or even more than you are looking for, you call it good ...or let's say, if you went into a store to buy a drill, (or a chair),, for example, and the sales-person showed you one that has more than you expected, you exclaim: "I'll take it!"

    I hope and trust that now I made the point clear.

    Comments? Questons? Reactions? Your views are welcome!
  • A 'New' Bill of Rights
    Remember, the government is for you, and should do what you want it to dogloaming
    True. We agree on that. That is why I advocate that an administration ought to systematically inquire and learn, and publicize, what the democratic consensus is among its constituents! Let's find out what the people really want -- and let's insist that if it's ethical and moral the government is to provide it.

    The U.S. Constitution, our guiding document here in the USA, claims that we have rights: the Right to a free press, the right to freedom of Assembly, to petition, and to protest. Etc. If you want to speak of our Rights as "interests," that's okay with me -- as long as we know, and are aware, that we are to pursue our true self-interest. What that is one will find spelled out in the manuscripts to which links are offered in my response to Bret B. See those writings cited.

    We are, I would argue, part of the fauna. ...Perhaps we are the funniest of all.. [Unfortunately, some are human preditors. In 2016, one of those was elected tto the highest office. In another discussion here at the Forum, on theory of Ethics, I described how to recognize such bad characters, and distinguish them from those of good character.]
    It turns out that what people really want is a Quality Life. What that entails, what it means in detail, is spelled out in the STRUCTURE OF ETHICS document, which see. A safe-to-open link to a pdf document is available. See the link in my reply to Bert.
  • A 'New' Bill of Rights
    IMO, a "good government" is one that enables its citizens to improve their own quality of life, as well as the lives of those around them; in a sort of volunteerism sense.Bret Bernhoft

    Thank you very much, Bret, for your fine contribution! What you are suggesting is actually more Applied Ethics!! You are talking about people helping people. This is Ethics. The reasons for my saying this are made evident in these papers (or booklets) which spells out in more detail what I mean. Check i t out. Read them over:

    Also, more background for the new paradigm for ethics is found here. q.v.
    BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach (2014) and also here:

    LIVING WELL: How Ethics helps us flourish (2015) – 23pp.

    In your response you have in a constructive way improved upon what I was attempting to convey. You are emphasizing the moral concept Autonomy, something which is also done in that very-brief last chapter of BASIC ETHICS.
    So thanks again for your insight.
  • Ethical Fallacies
    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.
  • Ethical Fallacies
    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.
  • Ethical Fallacies
    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.
  • Ethical Fallacies
    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.
  • Ethical Fallacies
    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.
  • Ethical Fallacies
    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.
  • Ethical Fallacies
    logic requires the use of symbols, language, and using language is essentially a communicative activity. Because of this, any system of logic will rely on communion rather than individuality, so it cannot assign priority to the individualMetaphysician Undercover
    The Philosophy Department at Stanford University publish an Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It might pay for readers here at the Forum to get acquainted with the standards they set for their articles and entries: Here is a sample:

    The analysis and clarification of vague and ambiguous concepts is a major part of doing philosophy. If "Logic" is a vague idea, they pin it down in papers such as in the cf. I hold that Logic, including a logic of entailments, and other predicate logics, can be a useful tool in explicating a subject such as ethics and values.
    The project on ethics you've undertaken should be scaled down to something more manageable in my humble opinion. Rather than starting from scratch why don't you try and reconcile Kant (deontological ethics) & Bentham-Mill (utilitarianism)? Perhaps you already tried...and failed. They do seem incompatible.Agent Smith
    They are not incompatible; though you will gain more value in life by complying with Mill's conclusions than with Kant's formulation of a procedure to follow in each instance. Mill in his writings said he believed there could be a science of ethics. He was strongly-influenced by Bentham who was very--inclined to be highly-systematic. In the masthead of of one of my books I do quote Kant where he is teaching that we need theory as well as mere experience. (Having one without the other, he implies, would be, so to speak, "flying blind.") Therefore, in my new approach to Ethics I do propose a logical framework and a systematic process.
    Here, if you are interested to learn, is a link to one of my earlier efforts:
    At least check out the first paragraph of the Introduction and then decide if you want to read further.
  • Ethical Fallacies
    logic requires the use of symbols, language, and using language is essentially a communicative activity. Because of this, any system of logic will rely on communion rather than individuality, so it cannot assign priority to the individualMetaphysician Undercover
    The Philosophy Department at Stanford University publish an Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It might pay for readers here at the Forum to get acquainted with the standards they set for their articles and entries: Here is a sample:

    The analysis and clarification of vague and ambiguous concepts is a major part of doing philosophy. If "Logic" is a vague idea, they pin it down in papers such as in the cf. I hold that Logic, including a logic of entailments, and other predicate logics, can be a useful tool in explicating a subject such as ethics and values.
  • Ethical Fallacies
    , priority in education is conformity. Every student must learn to do things in the very same wayMetaphysician Undercover
    That is one reason why my writings emphasize the Intrinsic values: creativity, autonomy, and individuality. It turns out that they correlate with one another in all having a very-high degree of value in my theory ...some careful readers of the work tell me they noticed that fact.
  • Ethical Fallacies
    E > I [ e.g., putting materialism ahead of people; caring more about stuff or money than about a person.]
    S > E [giving a dogma, an unsubstantiated opinion, higher priority than a thing, a possession, a meal, etc.] — Marvin Katz
    These two are .. inconsistent
    Metaphysician Undercover

    Yes, my friend, you are right, since S > E does not even belong in a thread whose topic is "Ethical Fallacies." It is amoral, non-ethical. It is a mistake I made even mentioning it. Ethics has to do with Intrinsic valuation of a person; and this specific formula, S > E, -while it is as fallacious as claiming that 40 > 400, does not mention Intrinsic Value. Thus it is not an ethical fallacy! Mea culpa. The true formula, the HOV, ( I > E > S ), does have I-Value in it. The values which the letters abbreviate are based on size - on the amount of value each symbolizes. As you know, I-value is nondenumerable and S-value is finite.

    It is perceptive of you, MU, to notice this. You are a serious philosopher, not just a hanger-on at a hangout. I expect great achievement from you, and trust that some of it will be in the field of Ethics. Please feel free to make further contributions which aid in constructing a theory superior to the present classroom curricula in this area. What is conventionally being taught is not adequate. Some would say the problem is the current economic system we live under, in which people who want to make a life have to beg a boss to employ them, rather than workers somehow being owners or partners under a better arrangement than we see on a large-scale now -- with the exception of Mondragon, located in the Basque region of Spain.
  • Ethical Fallacies
    Ethics and reason may be connected at a deep level.Agent Smith
    You are on to something important here, Agent Smith.
    Those who have excellent values correlate highly with those who are very intelligent according to empirical studies. It is predictable that someone who has what people rate as usually possessing "a good character" will also be considered as "a reasonable" individual (most of the time.)"

    Do you perhaps have evidence of another interpretation of the connection between those two concepts? For one, a good Theory of Ethics would need to meet the test of Reason, I would think.
  • Ethical Fallacies
    If we presuppose that hypocrisy (expressing beliefs, but not enacting them, implying underlying motives) is an ethical fallacy, "an eye for an eye" and "the ends justify the means" are ethical fallacies.Tzeentch
    You get it.
    Yes, hypocrisy is unethical. So also is "an eye for an eye" (retribution, vengeance). As Dr. M.L. King pointed out, "an eye for an eye will leave every party to it blind. It is the opposite of being ethical!
  • Ethical Fallacies
    What is this standard and where does it come from? Why does life have any moral worth or deserve moral consideration?Paulm12
    For many good reasons, Dr. Hartman arrived at the conclusion that the most-appropriate measure of human life is Aleph-sub-One, which is the power of the continuum. For one thing, when we attempt to describe a person, as we are getting better acquainted with the subject of our attention so as to describe with some accuracy, there is so much there to talk about, the deeper we explore the mind, body, and spirit (enthusiasms, inspirations, etc.) of our subject,, that we in theory would never finish the description; we, in fact, form a continuum with that which we are valuing when we properly value a human personality -- in the sense that you can't tell where the one the valuer leaves off and what s/he is valuing begins.
    {The number of points in a line-segment is also a continuum. How many are there?}

    For more details, see this entry in Wikipedia:
    That study, 'value science,' is the meta-ethics of which you speak, and which all who want a new and improved Ethics theory would be glad to see. Value science, in common with natural science, is highly tentative, subject to upgrading, to being incorporated in a more-comprehensive model should one come along. Since that "universal" requirement is what you insist on, and I will leave it up to you to judge whether it is satisfied by the logic which the value-scientists employ. [The new framework being offered applies at least to the planet Earth.]

    If Aleph-one is the right measure to assign to the human individual, which I hold that it is, then Intrinsic valuation is the corresponding appropriate way to treat that individual. {This proposition assumes that you are familiar with the three basic Dimension of Value, the S, E, and I. See the first eight pages of BASIC ETHICS Iif you want to learn about them.}
    And therefore that is the foundation of the new approach to ethics which I am proposing: we are, by definition and by observation and experience, to Intrinsically-Value (I-Value) the persons we interact with -- according to this new paradigm for Ethics. Else we are asking for trouble, such as massacres of innocent shoppers or school-children, and other forms of random violence. For example, wars, cheating, exploitation, rape, subjection to the State, or dictator, rankism, etc.
  • Ethical Fallacies
    It is a philosophical outlook, I seek the truth. So, I don't simply accept as a matter of course, what someone else proposes. To begin with, I don't succumb to the illusion of "authority", because this is a known fallacy.Metaphysician Undercover
    Correct! Well said!! Yes, Dr. Hartman does use a system to "put down" (dis-value) a system. His formal Axiology does find that, of the three basic Value Dimensions, systems have the least positive value. It took a system to prove that fact. Ironic, isn't it. It looks like something has to be contradictory; but strictly speaking, there is no contradiction. His deductions also show that to rate an S-value above an E-value is a mistake: It results in getting the one who does that very, very little value ...fractional value close to zero.

    Your're right in what you say. Thank you.

    .This is just subjective babble to me.
    MCK: Granted. I had that coming.
    Metaphysician Undercover
    I am generally not impressed by axiologists. They tend to produce axioms designed for a purposeMetaphysician Undercover
    Hartman's purpose is that he wanted to live in an ethical world, one where most people have high moral standards. He believed that education might be the route for bringing it about. He published dozens of papers in Kant Studien, a rigorously-edited-by-peers philosophical journal.

    I agree. And I've learned a lesson. I won't try to dialogue when overtired at a late-night hour. It won't happen again. What I scribbled was very unprofessional. Thank you for eldering me. Your critique is spot on.
  • Ethical Fallacies

    You're right in what you say. Thank you.
  • Ethical Fallacies
    Agent Smith
    Most interesting! —
    A formula, précisément, mon ami, préciséme[/quote

    Thanks. ---Build on it. Let's cooperate here to build a superior ethics theory to that which is taaught in classrooms, i.e., the traditional approach.
    Agent Smith
  • Ethical Fallacies
    In other words, your proposal, that I ought to accept your system, I > E > S, is incoherent, or at best hypocritical, because your proposal is to put your system (S) as higher than my personal values (I).[/quote]
    That is not correct. Yes, the formula is part of a system. No, I did not, and do not, "S value it higher than your personal values." Your criticism is reasonable and understandable. I Intrrinsically-value you and highly-appreciate your activity in wanting to improve Ethics as a theory. See the opening pages of an early booklet I wrote: It is named: Ethics: A College Course.

    Much of what you write is correct, but it fails to take into account logical type levels. [See the work of Allonzo Church, work which is an update and improvement on the pioneering work done by Bertrand Russell. Hartman devised a (perhaps over-simple) 'Calculus of Value' employing algebraic exponentiation [with itssuperscript] to express these type levels. He tells about it in his magnum opus, The Structure of Value (4967)[[.v.. "Love of life," for example, would be depicted in symbols as I-to-the-I power in his Calculus of values. And "disvaluing a system" would be shown by S-sub-S.

    ...Your formula, I > E > S, is itself an instance of S.
    This is correct. And, yes, at first glance it does appear to be contradictory. I'm very tired now but in a future post I will explain why there actually is no contradi ction.

    My will, being an instance of I, is to reject your formula, as a faulty form of S. Therefore my rejection of your formula is justified by your formula.

    [BTW, that is not my formula. Professor R. S. Hartman, a logician and formal axiologist, worked it out. I am not the only one, though, who finds that formula to be useful in the field of Ethics: an entire institute is dedicated to honoring him and doing further research to extend his work. See the academic Journal of Formal and Applied Axiology.
  • Ethical Fallacies
    " can it also be wrong tp prioritize an ideology or dogma as higher than a material thing?Metaphysician Undercover

    It is safe to predict that given a free choice most people invariably would choose what they Extrinsically value (whether it is a piece of material or a thing that they own) to be more valuable than all the dogmas and "-isms" of the world put together. The latter are, at best, Systemic values. Thus this application is a confirmation of the true formula: E > S .
    This is so when the Fallacy S > E is also not the case, both by definition and by observation: No way is a dogma, or an opinion, or someone's ad hoc 'theory' worth more than actual socio-economic concern you may have - such as the issue of child-care, or environmental issues, which issues you judge as having some value; and you will say "they matter" to you. Such concerns (matters, foci) as those , to which you will give your attention, are E-values.

    I hope, M.U., that this helps clear things up.....

    p.s. Another way to make the value dimensions understandable is to apply them to Ontology:
    S: Universals

    E: Particulars

    I: Uniquenesses, Singulars.

    S: Essence; E: Existence; I: Reality.
    Essences consist (in the mind); Existents exist (as perceived by the senses); and Realities persist.
    Further, S: Conception; E: Perception; I: Experience. [The latter is, hopefully, a balanced integration of one's conceptions and perceptions.]

    For additional applications, see pp. 64-66, of End-note 4, of the treatise (written in the literary form of a dialogue) entitled A Unified Theory of Ethics. -
  • Ethical Fallacies
    Isn't it the case that the first E > I, is itself a dogma or ideology? So the only way to see a person as higher than a material thing is to allow that dogma and ideology are also higher than material things. But this contradicts the second, S > E.

    Greetings, Undercover
    It's probably my fault, but I sense some confusion in the argument you presented. This is likely due to the fact that originally I did not show the valid formula, the HOV, until I edited my post to correct and improve it. The accurate value hierarchy is: I > E > S. Hence the two fallacies which you address are each false for the following reasons.
    E > I is a mistake, a fallacy, not a dogma. Perhaps my illustrations of the symbols could have been better; but let's not get 'hung up' on an illustration; instead - once you understand how the relationship among the symbols, S, E, and I were derived via Logic - by having studied carefully pp. 5-8 of the document, BASIC ETHICS - give us better examples that interpret the symbols than I offered in the original post. {I admit you are not obliged to do any background reading.} Allow me to explain:

    If it is true (as the HOV formula says it is) that I > E in the amount of value that each letter represents, then it is false to claim that E is greater (in size) than I. Likewise, it is a total mix-up to assert that S-value is greater than E-value. The HOV formula tells us that it is the other way around. A finite amount of value is less than a denumerably-infinite amount. {Ask any mathematician.}

    Dr. R. S. Hartman's gift to the world of Philosophy was to provide us with a way to measure values. [The concept "value" itself is a reification of the process of valuation - a process which humans constantly engage in all day long ...and maybe during the night also. (We frequently make value judgments.)
    Thanks for your interest.
  • Gensler's Golden Rule
    People are made to be loved.

    Things are made to be used.

    A major confusion in the world today

    Is that people are used

    And things -- such as guns -- are loved.

    ____________Inspired by B. J. Thomas.
  • Gensler's Golden Rule
    Gensler at least is trying to give people some guidance as to how to live ethically.

    My question for him is: What is meant by "the same situation," since I hold that very situation is unique. How can any situation be "the same"? Wouldn't a time factor alone make the situation different?

    Don't get me wrong; I'm all for consent. But who has time, on the spot, to ask themselves all those four questions if one is encountered urgently by someone else? We need a better principle than the one he offers.

    How about asking oneself quickly just this one axiogenic inquiry: How can I, here and now, best create some value in this interaction?
    p.s{The life-coaches at the Axiogenics site on the web speak of this notion as "The Central Question of Life and Logic." More exactly, it is: What choice can I make at this moment to create the greatest value?"}

    Here are some examples of what to keep in mind before one's next encounter: Can I offer a sincere compliment? Can I give a good tip which will be of value, be useful to this person? Can I fulfill a need this party has? How can I, in some way, help this person rise? In what specific way can I be of service?

    What say you?
  • What makes 'The Good Life' good?
    Good for you trying to articulate your thoughts on this subject. But do we need yet another text on moralityTom Storm

    Thanks, Tom. You get it!

    We do need to supply competent, precise, plain-spoken material for the curriculum of instructors in Ethics who will be hired, and who are now being hired, by major global corporations to teach a seminar in "Ethics." I have learned that this is happening more and more lately; companies are assigning people to give such an Adult-Ed course to their upper management personnel.

    I envision the content of my stuff to eventually serve such a purpose. How it will be arranged I don't know Perhaps you could figure out how to be instrumental in making this vision come to pass

    p.s. In my discussion here at the Forum on the subject of Can Morality Ever Be Objective? I upgraded and improved my earlier definition of "morality." I would add that new understanding of it to any future booklet or paper - if any - I would write on the topic.

    In the meantime, read over my more-recent effort to teach Ethics; then let us know what you thought of it. -
  • What makes 'The Good Life' good?
    Thank you profusely, Agent Smith, for helping to build that improved Ethical Theory that the world needs so much. With your permission I will add your contribution to the paradigm as it has developed so far. The final paragraph would then likely read:

    In conclusion, if you aim to be an ethical individual, one who truly understands Ethics and wants to live it, you would be the best you can be, in mind, heart and in body. You would endorse and encourage the spread of harmony. You will aim to be rational by working to improve your intelligence and scope of your reliable knowledge. And you will cultivate emotional stability, and treasure it. Also you would aim to optimize your physical fitness and your health.

    If you familiarize yourself with my writings you will find each of those themes were given emphasis. I have an entire chapter in LIVING WELL entitled 'Achieving Emotional Peace.' See p.. 16 here:

    And so forth for the other values you have come to recognize as you gained wisdom.

    Good work, Smith!
  • What makes 'The Good Life' good?
    Thank you, skyblack for your support. It is highly-appreciated.

    I just now, as you were posting, entered a response to my friend, Banno. You will see it above your comment.
  • What makes 'The Good Life' good?
    That is a constructive comment?? Maybe so.

    Greetings, Banno my friend:
    I am among your admirers for the wise contributions and upgrades you have made to this Forum.
    Careful readers will note that I presented the opening remarks of a text that went into detail, {perhaps too much so, demonstrating that a teacher who knew Ethics could succeed in explaining the points to kids in the first few grades at primary school.] Even so there is always the chance that some folks - present company excepted - would miss the points which I had hoped to make in a plain manner.

    In my initial discussion post I set out to clarify what Hartman managed to do. He died believing that he had launched a science of 'value.' ...a research study the axiom for which is his definition of the concept "good." I give him a lot of credit for that!
    I am genuinely sorry if I failed to express, or convey, in simple language, the monumental breakthrough that Hartman achieved!!

    I may be wrong, but I think Banno you would get a lot out of the first 18 pages of sections in a more-serious book: MC.Katz, ETHICS: A College Course. Here, for your convenience, is a link to it:
    [It is safe-to-open. Study it, and enjoy!
  • Gensler's Golden Rule
    Gensler at least is trying to give people some guidance as to how to live ethically.

    My question for him is: What is meant by "the same situation," since I hold that very situation is unique. How can any situation be "the same"? Wouldn't a time factor alone make the situation different?

    Don't get me wrong; I'm all for consent. But who has time, on the spot, to ask themselves all those four questions if one is encountered urgently by someone else? We need a better principle than the one he offers.

    How about asking oneself quickly just this one axiogenic inquiry: How can I, here and now, best create some value in this interaction?
    p.s{The life-coaches at the Axiogenics site on the web speak of this notion as "The Central Question of Life and Logic." More exactly, it is: What choice can I make at this moment to create the greatest value?"}

    Here are some examples of what to keep in mind before one's next encounter: Can I offer a sincere compliment? Can I give a good tip which will be of value, be useful to this person? Can I fulfill a need this party has? How can I, in some way, help this person rise? In what specific way can I be of service?

    p.s. Here is a link to an early scribble I co-authored: some food for thought....

    What say you?