A List of Ethical Principles

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » A List of Ethical Principles

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 01:03 am

What I am about to say is an objective truth. Yet it pertains to ethics.

The following principles, which I have excerpted from The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, are the ones most commonly appealed to in applied ethical discussions:

 Personal benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for the individual in question.

 Social benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for society.

 Principle of benevolence: help those in need.

 Principle of paternalism: assist others in pursuing their best interests when they cannot do so themselves.

 Principle of harm: do not harm others.

 Principle of honesty: do not deceive others.

 Principle of lawfulness: do not violate the law.

 Principle of autonomy: acknowledge a person's freedom over his/her actions or physical body.

 Principle of justice: acknowledge a person's right to due process, fair compensation for harm done, and fair distribution of benefits.

 Rights: acknowledge a person's rights to life, information, privacy, free expression, and safety.

(Source: The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Ethics): Ethics [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

In my own paradigm (model) for Ethics (as a coherent discipline) I have derived many of the above principles from a small set of premises, and have added a couple of other principles, such as The Principle of Ethical Consistency; and, The Ethical Radius.

The former indicates that it is a moral error to have one standard for yourself (or for your own country) and another for everyone else.

The latter is a measure of how many you include within your in-group, how many you sweep into your 'social circle.'

For further details, see the PDF-file, ETHICS: A College Course
Curriki - ETHICS-Acollegecourse
or see the briefer, easier-to-read popularized version (-a document safe to open-) containing original added material: http://tinyurl.com/24swmd

---------- Post added 08-09-2009 at 03:06 AM ----------

[CENTER][CENTER]A LESSON FROM HISTORY[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]

In 1820, the Reverend Sylvester Graham, a Presbyterian minister from Connecticut, promoted a strict diet. The good reverend urged total vegetarianism. He also warned against excess fat as well as condiments, mustard, ketchup and refined white flour. He urged followers to drink only water, and recommended sleeping with one's windows open. He also touted the merits of a high-fiber diet. Graham had his adherents during his lifetime. He inspired a health craze. A high-fiber vegetarian diet wasn't the only thing he pushed; he was also strongly against the use of tobacco or alcohol and advocated fresh air, exercise, and a good night's sleep, all excellent components of a healthy lifestyle.

Now, 189 years later, in 2009, his ideas about eating fruits and vegetables are finally catching on generally. It took a while, but what was called "nutty" in his day is commonplace now. It has been the same with other good ideas. At first they are ridiculed; then they are taken for granted; then everyone claims they thought of it first.


The new experimental science, Moral Psychology, is making progress also.

Wouldn't it be fine if Ethics - as a body of thought -would make progress in this world?
I ask you.






 
jgweed
 
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 06:22 am
@deepthot,
While the forms of ethical discourse might be called "objective" in some sense, they also seem to cause further questions. For example, if one acknowledges the extent to which actions contribute to the social benefit of society, there still remains the question about what actions REALLY benefit society and what criteria are to be used to judge whether a particular action actually benefits society.


Or again, if one acknowledges the Principle of Honesty, are there not exceptions, and would not these exceptions undermine its status as a Principle? If for example, a vigilante gang of citizens demands of me to know where someone is hiding, am I to collaborate in his lynching by being honest about where he is hiding?


Most ethical situations and choices in real life seem less than clear-cut, and can be very ambiguous. All the principles are, one could also argue, perfectly fine, but there is (as my example indicates) no Principle to judge which Principle is more important than another Principle when they seem to contradict one another.

That, lastly, these Principles are often used in ethical discourse does not seem sufficient to warrant their being "objective," rather perhaps just the opposite. And certainly the application of them to specific events and is subjective and a matter of choice.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 03:13 pm
@jgweed,
jgweed;82070 wrote:
While the forms of ethical discourse might be called "objective" in some sense, they also seem to cause further questions....


I agree. The point I was making is that the fact that these concepts are frequently appealed to in ethical discourse IS A FACT, and thus, in at least one sense of 'objective' IS OBJECTIVE. So we see that ethics and objectivity are compatible with one another. That is why I am so bold as to claim that morals {-not mores, not cultural folkways-} and ethics ARE NOT SIMPLY A MATTER OF PURE OPINION.

I proposed in those two free books published on the internet a new (yet old) paradigm which, theoretically could gain wide acceptance. If it ever did, then studies done employing that frame of reference, that model, would, when they were replicated by other researchers, gradually (or suddenly in some instances) gain the reputation of facticity. Those conclusions derived, and empirically demonstrated, would correctly be described as objective truths.



jgweed;82070 wrote:

Or again, if one acknowledges the Principle of Honesty, are there not exceptions, and would not these exceptions undermine its status as a Principle? If for example, a vigilante gang of citizens demands of me to know where someone is hiding, am I to collaborate in his lynching by being honest about where he is hiding?


In my booklet, LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, pp.40 ff. I have a section on "Honesty and Lying" which goes into those very questions - specifically addressing the one offered in your example. [Evidentally some Forum members haven't yet taken the time to glance at these pages. But that's okay. No answers nor solutions given are final. All findings are tentative, subject to later development ---- same as in physical science.]
I would be interested to hear whether that section argues successfully for the case it makes for honesty in life. Some quite reputable advisors on ettiquette maintain that telling 'little white lies' at times is justifiable. I show how this may largely be avoided.

http://tinyurl.com/24swmd


jgweed;82070 wrote:

Most ethical situations and choices in real life seem less than clear-cut, and can be very ambiguous. All the principles are, one could also argue, perfectly fine, but there is (as my example indicates) no Principle to judge which Principle is more important than another Principle when they seem to contradict one another.


All very true but you miss my point... I was not arguing for the use of any particular principles, nor that it was desirable to invoke them. I was merely showing that objectivity in ethics is not a reach - for the reasons I presented above in response to the first point you brought up.


jgweed;82070 wrote:

That, lastly, these Principles are often used in ethical discourse does not seem sufficient to warrant their being "objective," rather perhaps just the opposite. And certainly the application of them to specific events and is subjective and a matter of choice.


I never claimed these principles "warrant being objective". Yes the application of them is subjective and a matter of choice. Again, this is a red herring, a straw man, since what I said is objective is that these are appealed to during the course of doing ethics - academic ethics, and sometimes even business ethics. They are alluded to if not by name then by the thought behind the principle. If that is a fact, then it is objective knowledge.
Please re-read my first sentence in the original post of this thread, and also the parts in bold print in the next sentence
Folks will note what I am actually claiming if they study it carefully.
(No offense intended, so I trust noe is taken.)



 
deepthot
 
Reply Tue 11 Aug, 2009 12:15 am
@deepthot,


Relevant to all my posts is this review of a book by a Princeton philosopher, Dr. Anthony Appiah:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/books/review/Bloom-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=review

I recommend this review highly for the issues it raises in moral philosphy.

Appiah challenges early character education (which I advocate) in favor of arranging conditions in society so that serious moral dilemmas don't arise in the first place, or will be at a minimum. I also advocate the latter, and do not see why we can't do both at the same time.

We can do both. We can inform potential parents - with a massive education campaign - of the best ways know to science as to how to raise children. See the chapter on that in
Hamstra, Bruce, WHY GOOD PEOPLE DO BAD THINGS; HOW TO MAKE MORAL CHOICES IN AN IMMORAL WORLD (Carol Publishing, Secaucus, NJ, 1996),


We can also design cities and neighborhoods along the lines of the most uplifting examples, using them as demo projects to set the standard for other dwelling spaces ...ones that encourage neighborliness and moral behavior, such as helpfulness and respect. This is applied ethics - in contrast to the theoretical. In schools we study the academic and theoretical. Let us hope it has some practical applications.


Peterr Singer - who also teaches Philosophy at Princeton - has another excellent review of Dr. Appiah's Bryn Mawr lecture series which constitutes the book, EXPERIMENTS IN ETHICS. Here is a link to it: Putting Practice Into Ethics - January 16, 2008 - The New York Sun


Again, I recommend a perusal of that article to gain insight as to what is important in the field of Ethics. ...We find further objective truth in most everything Dr. Singer writes.


The column is priceless for Matt Murry's comment alone,
on the now classic Trolley Dilemma, which I quote:

"Would an ethical person really sacrifice someone to save another?

Wouldn't an ethical person warn the people below by screaming at the top of their lungs, "Get out of the way!!!"? If you couldn't talk, surely you would tap the fat stranger on the shoulder and have him shout, right?

There are many more answers then just the two pointed out."
 
Phil OSophical
 
Reply Tue 11 Aug, 2009 03:36 pm
@deepthot,
What a load of bullshit
 
deepthot
 
Reply Tue 11 Aug, 2009 08:07 pm
@Phil OSophical,
Thanks, Phil, for your constructive contribution. :whistling:
 
deepthot
 
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 02:39 am
@jgweed,
jgweed;82070 wrote:
.... if one acknowledges the extent to which actions contribute to the social benefit of society, there still remains the question about what actions REALLY benefit society and what criteria are to be used to judge whether a particular action actually benefits society.


Greetings, jigweed:

You ask some good questions. Upon reflection I believe you deserve more adequate responses than I gave. Replying to your first remarks, in re the difficulty of judging whether an action is 'actually to the benefit of society', that is why my paradigm for Ethics is not centered around actions, but makes character one of the central concepts. The morality of an individual and his/her character are crucial, it seems to me. Sure, there are plenty of philosopyhical difficulties in connection with those concepts, but to me, somehow, they seem simpler to tackle. Descartes, in his Method, advised starting with the simple and advancing from there to the complex.
In this case it is going from the complex to the more complex.

jgweed;82070 wrote:

Or again, if one acknowledges the Principle of Honesty, are there not exceptions, and would not these exceptions undermine its status as a Principle? If for example, a vigilante gang of citizens demands of me to know where someone is hiding, am I to collaborate in his lynching by being honest about where he is hiding?


I already spoke to this when I recommended that folks read pages 40-42 of LIVING THE GOOD LIFE and I offered a link to ithe essay.

jgweed;82070 wrote:

Most ethical situations and choices in real life seem less than clear-cut, and can be very ambiguous. All the principles are, one could also argue, perfectly fine, but there is (as my example indicates) no Principle to judge which Principle is more important than another Principle when they seem to contradict one another.


Yes, situations and choices appear ambiguous because we lack so far a clear structure to explain them and to order them. Once we have such a frame of reference, we see things more clearly; and things tend to fall into place. One such tool is the Existential Hierarchy of Value of which we spoike earlier, in previous posts I wrote - in which we dialogued. It is also described in more detail in my books, where it is encapsultated in a formula.

When principles seem to contradict one another, let the Hierarchy be your guide..


jgweed;82070 wrote:

That, lastly, these Principles are often used in ethical discourse does not seem sufficient to warrant their being "objective," rather perhaps just the opposite. And certainly the application of them to specific events and is subjective and a matter of choice.


The principles listed, as listed, were never claimed by yours truly as being objective. However when they are integrated in a coherent framework, such as in the ETHICS: A COLLEGE COURSE manual, then - once that is picked up as being a rational, sensible, way of looking at things, the now-synthesized and reinterpreted principles could become what some would characterize as "objective" -- that itself being a matter of degree, such as the word "tall." When I say "objective" I mean: in the sense that they could be taught on a blackboard (or whiteboard; or as part of a Powerpoint presentation.)

Let me know if I have addressed your concerns -- at least a little better than before......

Cordially,

deepthot
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 05:39 am
@deepthot,
I think this idea has a lot of potential. You refer in the online book to a group of estimable people - the Dalai Lama and others. This suggests a possible source of materials to work with. There are many sources of ethical theory in the various traditions, for example the Nichomachean Ethics of Aristotle, the Confucian Ethics, Buddhist Ethics, and so on. Mullah Nasruddin is another one. There are even aesops fables and the Jataka tales (stories of Buddha's former lives).

As you point out, many of these embody similar principles common to many cultures and traditions. Also they contain many excellent anecdotes and 'teaching stories' which can be used to illustrate various principles of ethics in action. (And they are all generally in the public domain, too:-)

The other useful aspect of these materials, is that it might help your audience to relate the theory to their lives by relating it to their cultural milieu. This way you could build up a lot of very valuable training information that had a lot of interesting cultural flavour and perspectives while still relating it to the objective principles that you are developing.

just a thought!
 
deepthot
 
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 03:29 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;82936 wrote:
I think this idea has a lot of potential. You refer in the online book to a group of estimable people - the Dalai Lama and others. This suggests a possible source of materials to work with. There are many sources of ethical theory in the various traditions, for example the Nichomachean Ethics of Aristotle, the Confucian Ethics, Buddhist Ethics, and so on. Mullah Nasruddin is another one. There are even aesops fables and the Jataka tales (stories of Buddha's former lives).

As you point out, many of these embody similar principles common to many cultures and traditions. Also they contain many excellent anecdotes and 'teaching stories' which can be used to illustrate various principles of ethics in action. (And they are all generally in the public domain, too:-)

The other useful aspect of these materials, is that it might help your audience to relate the theory to their lives by relating it to their cultural milieu. This way you could build up a lot of very valuable training information that had a lot of interesting cultural flavour and perspectives while still relating it to the objective principles that you are developing.

just a thought!


Greetings, jeeprs:

You have some very useful suggestions here. In your summary you omitted mention of The Tao, which also contains wisdom the human family can really use. Thanks for those very stimulating thoughts.


I believe it is rational to act in one's self-interest if one only knew what it is. To know what it truly is, is to have enlightened self interest. Therefore one should seek enlightenment. In this I concur with Gautama, the Buddha, and with Aristotle when he spoke of 'practical wisdom' and of 'flourishing.' The latter includes the former.

I do not subscribe to ethical egoism, a philosophy which does not entail enlightenment, whereas my position does. I do subscribe to ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help and serve others.

We ought not disregard the well-being of others. Why? Because from the ethical perspective on individuals we Intrinsically value them, and that a fortiori implies that we care about their well-being.

After reading that document which presented an outline of the system of Ethics, did you have any questions?


I am glad that you found that "this idea has a lot of potential." The "many excellent anecdotes and teaching stories" available in the literature of the great paths to enlightenment to which you refer provides a researcher in Ethics, or a Ph.D. candidate, with a project: find those stories, assemble them, and relate them to the frame of reference offered in the paradigm described in the "College Course" booklet.

[p.s. Adam Smith, the 'Father of the free market philosophy' also advocated enlightened self interest, not mere self interest (which is, in fact, another name for selfishness.
And selfishness, as you know, is the cause of most unethical behavior. I maintain also that all falling short of the highest morality, all our stupid mistakes, is due to ignorance. If we knew better, we would likely do better.)







 
HexHammer
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 12:50 pm
@deepthot,
What I am about to say is an objective truth. Yet it pertains to ethics. I don't see any objective truth about your writing, some demagogues may try to solidify their works by stating such, and you fully buy it.

 Personal benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for the individual in question.
Seems like ammo for the selfcenterd to make others do his bidding

 Social benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for society.
Eeehhhh, yearh I heard the christians suggest more religion in society, just that they'r so many pedos in that religious institution.

You need to be a bit mroe specific, other than just state some good short sighted intentions.

 Principle of benevolence: help those in need.
Give the starving a fish, and you feed him for a day, teachign him how to fish and you feed him forever, and he may teach others how to fish.

 Principle of paternalism: assist others in pursuing their best interests when they cannot do so themselves.
Excelent ammo for the psycotic parent who "helps" his family by beating and molesting them to more motivation.

 Principle of harm: do not harm others.
So we shouldn't put anyone in prison, we shouldn't use tear gas at the angry mob? We can't make legal lawsuits against eachothers? ..this is a breeding ground for egoists, more ammo for selfish demagogues.

 Principle of honesty: do not deceive others.
Now your killing any politician, how can they practise their craft without any "streching truth"? How can any buisness leader calm the waters by dispencing a white lie, to avoid panic? How can we wage a war without deception?

 Principle of lawfulness: do not violate the law.
If I at night, stand at red light at a road crossing, I will break the law by walking straight over, when there are no cars in miles radius, uuuh!

When you are dying and are on your way to hospital, the ambulance can't rush you to hospital, because of the speeding! ..then you will die!

 Principle of autonomy: acknowledge a person's freedom over his/her actions or physical body.
If you are drowning, no one can swim out and grap you, thus you drown, makes sense. :whistling:

 Principle of justice: acknowledge a person's right to due process, fair compensation for harm done, and fair distribution of benefits.
In Denmark we usually talk things over, but in USA they make lawsuits like changeing your undies, poor ethics, waste of time and money.

 Rights: acknowledge a person's rights to life, information, privacy, free expression, and safety.
Yearh, that's what bullies says, freedom of speech, when insulting everybody, then hides behind the safety of his rights.
Yearh, why don't we all demand, all CIA and FBI documents be publicly avaliable!


---

Dear Deepthot, I admire your will to help the world with better ethics, but I always find your reasoning to be too short and simple, a breeding ground for misinterpetation.

You should know that it isn't only intelligent people who read your works, but simple minded, idiots, retards, psycotics, scitzophrenics ..etc ..it's EVERYBODY!!! Therefore you should make more detailed describtions and explenations other than very basic good intentions.

You should study some precedence of how laws can be interpeted in very mystefying ways, to the extreme absurdities.

To be blunt, you should forget this ethic buisness, and find another pass time you can endulge in.
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 11:38 pm
@HexHammer,
Hi Hex

Your diatribe is quite entertaining as all rhetoricals, indeed end up in.
Although deepthot is quite capable of answering back, i would as well do it for I am reasonably provoked to ignore it . My comments are in italics below your wordings

HexHammer;170055 wrote:
What I am about to say is an objective truth. Yet it pertains to ethics. I don't see any objective truth about your writing, some demagogues may try to solidify their works by stating such, and you fully buy it.


You are to an extent right. To claim so, is a difficult proposition to defend. More than objective truths, i find them as notional truths. The difficulty arises when we use the term 'truth'........ perhaps, if we call it rules or simply principles, it may be more acceptable.

To be fair, deepthot has already implied the difficulty involved in asserting truths in ethics. If you note, the religious scriptures and traditions also claim objective truths sourced or ordained from divinity, thus proclaiming a kind of authoritativeness, which thereby and therefore cannot be questioned by ordinary souls.

The following comments are examples of bad criticisms:

[QUOTE=HexHammer;170055] Personal benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for the individual in question. Seems like ammo for the selfcenterd to make others do his bidding.[/QUOTE]
A self-centered person needs no ammo----- his ego is his ammo.
[QUOTE=HexHammer;170055] Social benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for society.
Eeehhhh, yearh I heard the christians suggest more religion in society, just that they'r so many pedos in that religious institution.
You need to be a bit mroe specific, other than just state some good short sighted intentions.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, to say, you have not understood the statement at all...... all social actions are assumed and presumed to benefit society. Evil actions do not benefit society but a few for a short period. This principle is universal.
[QUOTE=HexHammer;170055] Principle of benevolence: help those in need.
Give the starving a fish, and you feed him for a day, teachign him how to fish and you feed him forever, and he may teach others how to fish.[/QUOTE]
Both, my dear are a kind of 'helpings'. Giving a fish or a fishing net is an act of benevolence. A perfect principle in human society. There is no other principle more universal than this, according to me.
[QUOTE=HexHammer;170055] Principle of paternalism: assist others in pursuing their best interests when they cannot do so themselves.
Excelent ammo for the psycotic parent who "helps" his family by beating and molesting them to more motivation.[/QUOTE]
The word 'paternalism' comes from its meaning of 'fathering'. You got a psychotic tendency to confound the meanings, and using extreme examples which are anyway not applicable to the said principle.
Plus, how does ethical principles be applied to or by mad people.
[QUOTE=HexHammer;170055] Principle of harm: do not harm others.
So we shouldn't put anyone in prison, we shouldn't use tear gas at the angry mob? We can't make legal lawsuits against each others? .......... this is a breeding ground for egoists, more ammo for selfish demagogues.[/QUOTE]
Not to harm others is applied by individuals. To counter a violation the society assumes the right to reprimind the violator by coersive and noncoersive means. You are digressing the principle. Whether you like it or disagree, your own existence depends on ths principle. Please realise.
[QUOTE=HexHammer;170055] Principle of honesty: do not deceive others.
Now your killing any politician, how can they practise their craft without any "streching truth"? How can any buisness leader calm the waters by dispencing a white lie, to avoid panic? How can we wage a war without deception? [/QUOTE]
Are you a politician? What about and why not robbers and muggers. Think about them too.
[QUOTE=HexHammer;170055] Principle of lawfulness: do not violate the law.
If I at night, stand at red light at a road crossing, I will break the law by walking straight over, when there are no cars in miles radius, uuuh!
When you are dying and are on your way to hospital, the ambulance can't rush you to hospital, because of the speeding! ..then you will die![/QUOTE]
Frivolous argument!
[QUOTE=HexHammer;170055] Principle of autonomy: acknowledge a person's freedom over his/her actions or physical body.
If you are drowning, no one can swim out and grap you, thus you drown, makes sense. :whistling:[/QUOTE]
Remember the first two principle and principle of helping others. You would agree that you were ridiculous - in a fishy ground in fact.

[QUOTE=HexHammer;170055] Principle of justice: acknowledge a person's right to due process, fair compensation for harm done, and fair distribution of benefits.
In Denmark we usually talk things over, but in USA they make lawsuits like changeing your undies, poor ethics, waste of time and money.[/QUOTE]

Absurd argument! Whats this observation to do with the principle?
[QUOTE=HexHammer;170055] Rights: acknowledge a person's rights to life, information, privacy, free expression, and safety.
Yearh, that's what bullies says, freedom of speech, when insulting everybody, then hides behind the safety of his rights.
Yearh, why don't we all demand, all CIA and FBI documents be publicly avaliable![/quote]
Again you are talking about the state, not the individual.

---
[QUOTE=HexHammer;170055]Dear Deepthot, I admire your will to help the world with better ethics, but I always find your reasoning to be too short and simple, a breeding ground for misinterpetation.

You should know that it isn't only intelligent people who read your works, but simple minded, idiots, retards, psycotics, scitzophrenics ..etc ..it's EVERYBODY!!! Therefore you should make more detailed describtions and explenations other than very basic good intentions.

You should study some precedence of how laws can be interpeted in very mystefying ways, to the extreme absurdities.

To be blunt, you should forget this ethic buisness, and find another pass time you can endulge in.[/QUOTE]

To be more blunt, you have no idea what ethics is. You think it as some kind of a school rule book or at the most a traffic guidebook. Wonder how simple, people can be?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 12:42 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;171156 wrote:

To be more blunt, you have no idea what ethics is. You think it as some kind of a school rule book or at the most a traffic guidebook. Wonder how simple, people can be?


But the term, "ethics" has (at least) two meanings. 1. The study of moral principles, and 2. those moral principles themselves. Hex is using the term in the second sense, and you are using the term in the first sense. But how can Hex not "have any idea of what ethics is" just because he uses it in a sense different from yours? He is right. In one sense, ethics is a list of principles of morality.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 01:45 am
@deepthot,
Hello, Jack

Your defense is off track I am sorry to say. Hex missed the point altogether because he (to take the kind interpretation) failed to read - or skimmed very hurriedly not letting it sink in - the 2nd and 3rd sentences in the original post; and did not read the first and second paragraphs in post #3. There I claimed 'objectivity' for a fact, namely that those principles are often referred to, perhaps implicityly if not by the explicit words, in ethical discourse. I explained that carefully in response to Jigweed's critique of the o.p.

I wish I could speak Danish as well as he speaks English so it is commendable that Hex reads English as well as he does. I admire you for that, Hex.. However, I never claimed any truth-value for those principles listed, so objections to those were just a commission of The Straw Man Fallacy of logic.

They were from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: they were not MY principles. I agree with HexHammer and with Jigweed that they are too simple, too vague, and difficult to apply. They concern action, and if he had only read my writings he would be aware that my system of Ethics is not oriented around action; its main emphasis is character. As shown at the end of Appendix Three of ETHICS; A College Course (which if that title is put between quote marks, and placed in the Google search box, is the first selection that comes up as a result of the search) the value-analysis of traditional schools of ethics is as follows:

S: theories of rights, obligations and duties

E: theories of consequences, actions, utilities

I: theories that are character-based and stress avoiding excesses and deficits (i.e., VTs).(aporetic theories.)

As you know, I give some credence to utility when I appeal to the concept that it is in one's self-interest to optimize (if not maximize) the amount of value in one's life, to "shop" for value - which many Americans love to do already - and you know I care about human rights (many of those listed in The U.N. Declaration of Huamn Rights which Eleanor Roosevelt worked so hard to develop and get written as an officeal declaration.)

My work is a true synthesis of all of the three major schools. Of the various reasons given by Prof. Herbert Gintis in that passage quoted there among the final words of Appendix 3, the one to like best is the one where he speaks of the motive for caring for his aunt being: "I aim to be a good person, and caring for her follows from that aim" ...or words to that effect. In other words, he will Intrinsically-value his aunt because he is aware that is the ethical thing to do, and because he is a man of good character. That motive trumps the others !!

Check it out.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 04:32 am
@deepthot,
deepthot;171178 wrote:
Hex missed the point altogether because he (to take the kind interpretation) failed to read - or skimmed very hurriedly not letting it sink in - the 2nd and 3rd sentences in the original post; and did not read the first and second paragraphs in post #3. There I claimed 'objectivity' for a fact, namely that those principles are often referred to, perhaps implicityly if not by the explicit words, in ethical discourse. I explained that carefully in response to Jigweed's critique of the o.p.
Dear Deep, you should know you can't ask me to read through a whole thread, which often streches over 20 pages, if you intend to correct youself through the discussion, make correction to your initial post.

deepthot;171178 wrote:
I wish I could speak Danish as well as he speaks English so it is commendable that Hex reads English as well as he does. I admire you for that, Hex.. However, I never claimed any truth-value for those principles listed, so objections to those were just a commission of The Straw Man Fallacy of logic.
Strange, the VERY FIRST line in your initial post reads:
[QUOTE]What I am about to say is an objective truth. Yet it pertains to ethics.[/QUOTE]I clearly see "objective truth" strongly contradicting anything you say now, if you have corrected youself in later posts, make correction to initial post, understand?

Jackofalltrades

Disregarding all your puerile attacks, your arguing does not make sense to me. It seems you just argue for the sake of arguing, and in the process forgets to put anything meaningful in your words.

Considering all your attacks, and specially this "Wonder how simple, people can be?", it correlates well with the lack of meaningful arguments you display. Infact even the person whom you try to defend, does not agree with you.

This is a philosophy forum, not a bicker forum.
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 04:47 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;171168 wrote:
But the term, "ethics" has (at least) two meanings. 1. The study of moral principles, and 2. those moral principles themselves. Hex is using the term in the second sense, and you are using the term in the first sense. But how can Hex not "have any idea of what ethics is" just because he uses it in a sense different from yours? He is right. In one sense, ethics is a list of principles of morality.


Ethics is the science of morals or moral principles. Applied Ethics is the practical use of those principles. I used the term in this sense. Like all social principles, they are theoretical, (i know deepthot disagrees with me), and therefore, my contention is that all ethical values (so created) cannot be applied by all and sundry.

However, Hexhammer's points, although substantiates my contention, is also but a narrow way of looking at ethical principles. He goes about it as if it is rules written on rock. But no, no social theories or principles are rock solid in its foundation (although deepthot attempts hard to convince us on this). It is ironical, but for me both the view points are not acceptable.

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 04:31 PM ----------

HexHammer;171199 wrote:

Disregarding all your puerile attacks, your arguing does not make sense to me. It seems you just argue for the sake of arguing, and in the process forgets to put anything meaningful in your words.

Considering all your attacks, and specially this "Wonder how simple, people can be?", it correlates well with the lack of meaningful arguments you display. Infact even the person whom you try to defend, does not agree with you.

This is a philosophy forum, not a bicker forum.


Let me give you some examples of bickering.
B1) The fact that the person said i am 'off track' does not mean he disagree, whereas he points out immediately that you 'missed the point althogether', and i was just pointed out to you, how you missed such a large point.

B2) Read the 'Fallacy of the Straw Man'. and to add, Your pointing a finger at me has made three fingers point at yourself.

Dont you think, bickering sometimes help in thinking logically. Anyway, thats a diffrent matter.

Meaningful arguments was what was expected here while discussing Deepthots principles (nothing pioneering about those, but should thank him for his wisdom and articulations)....... which i found very reasonable and written in a simplistic form for simple people to understand. But of all the arguments presented, i found yours the most meaningless counter argument.

For one example: While a principle of justice was laid out, you talk about how people are able to talk it out in your country and how in US people go to courts on disputes on underwears. In which case you are just trying to rake up an issue where there is none. Absurd, i said.

As long as narrow and absurd thinking goes, i shall be more than willing to reason (you may call it bickering), and hopefully reason will succed at the end of the day.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 05:41 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;171202 wrote:
Ethics is the science of morals or moral principles. Applied Ethics is the practical use of those principles. I used the term in this sense. Like all social principles, they are theoretical, (i know deepthot disagrees with me), and therefore, my contention is that all ethical values (so created) cannot be applied by all and sundry.

However, Hexhammer's points, although substantiates my contention, is also but a narrow way of looking at ethical principles. He goes about it as if it is rules written on rock. But no, no social theories or principles are rock solid in its foundation (although deepthot attempts hard to convince us on this). It is ironical, but for me both the view points are not acceptable.

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 04:31 PM ----------





I don't think that Hexhammer regards ethical principles as social principles. I am not clear what social principles are, but if you mean by the term, "social principles" that ethical principles are principles which a society actually lives by and follows, I don't think he believes that ethical principles are social principles. Rather, he thinks that ethical principles are principles that a society ought to follow (not that they do follow). And that is much different.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 06:07 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;171202 wrote:
Let me give you some examples of bickering.
B1) The fact that the person said i am 'off track' does not mean he disagree, whereas he points out immediately that you 'missed the point althogether', and i was just pointed out to you, how you missed such a large point.

B2) Read the 'Fallacy of the Straw Man'. and to add, Your pointing a finger at me has made three fingers point at yourself.

Dont you think, bickering sometimes help in thinking logically. Anyway, thats a diffrent matter.

Meaningful arguments was what was expected here while discussing Deepthots principles (nothing pioneering about those, but should thank him for his wisdom and articulations)....... which i found very reasonable and written in a simplistic form for simple people to understand. But of all the arguments presented, i found yours the most meaningless counter argument.

For one example: While a principle of justice was laid out, you talk about how people are able to talk it out in your country and how in US people go to courts on disputes on underwears. In which case you are just trying to rake up an issue where there is none. Absurd, i said.

As long as narrow and absurd thinking goes, i shall be more than willing to reason (you may call it bickering), and hopefully reason will succed at the end of the day.
When you actually want to discuss things in a serious manner, instead of making preposterous defenses, then we can talk.
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 11:58 am
@HexHammer,
kennethamy;171208 wrote:
I don't think that Hexhammer regards ethical principles as social principles. I am not clear what social principles are, but if you mean by the term, "social principles" that ethical principles are principles which a society actually lives by and follows, I don't think he believes that ethical principles are social principles. Rather, he thinks that ethical principles are principles that a society ought to follow (not that they do follow). And that is much different.


You are at it again...... playing your fav pass time. Shouting from the back and shooting from others shoulder. If you think that he doe snot believe that ethical principles are social principles, than i think you have no idea of sociological terms, so better keep mum. First of all a school kid will no ethical principles are indeed social principles, since it can't be the principles of the earth and its motion. My advice is better stick to your field of expertise, and do not put your neck at every nook and corner of human thought. Thats an humble advice because now you have started going into the heads of other people and talking vicariously.

HexHammer;171212 wrote:
When you actually want to discuss things in a serious manner, instead of making preposterous defenses, then we can talk.


I am damn serious. In fact i was never thsi serious to be frank, i thought when you asked deepthot to 'forget the ethic business', and find other pass time's......... i thought it was not only preposterous but simply ridiculous. Your bluntness should put you to shame.

And as a matter of fact, and principles of debate, you better start refuting the points against my observations.

The above statement you made appears to be a retreat from a debate rather than a serious defense.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 12:10 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;171339 wrote:
I am damn serious. In fact i was never thsi serious to be frank, i thought when you asked deepthot to 'forget the ethic business', and find other pass time's......... i thought it was not only preposterous but simply ridiculous. Your bluntness should put you to shame.

And as a matter of fact, and principles of debate, you better start refuting the points against my observations.

The above statement you made appears to be a retreat from a debate rather than a serious defense.
I have absolutely no intention stooping down on a puerile levl of argumentation, slinging mud and other primitive and agressive stupidities.

"you better start refuting" Your usual overly agressive behaviour, I just can't allow myself to dignify such behaviour.

We can debate when you are ready for a mature and sound debate.
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 12:30 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;171342 wrote:
I have absolutely no intention stooping down on a puerile levl of argumentation, slinging mud and other primitive and agressive stupidities.

"you better start refuting" Your usual overly agressive behaviour, I just can't allow myself to dignify such behaviour.

We can debate when you are ready for a mature and sound debate.



Okay, that was 'aggressive' i accept that. My apology if you feel hurt.

Now, tell me where have you maturedly refuted my counter points. You call me 'childish'..... and i am immatured, and thats not 'mud slinging'. Than what is.

You are nit-picking and highlighting all irrelvent asides and still refusing to a proper debate. To your initial points against the OPs principles i made some observations. You are obviously offended by my calling some your sentences absurd and frivolous. It is a legitimate debating 'terms'. But you take it has 'mud-slinging'. So i will treat you very sensitively.

I hope you can start a debate, not just say something and get away with it.

For a start, let me recapitulate one point and it would be clear to you how absurd your argumenst were, and hope ken is also listening:

In the principle of paternalism: You counter argued with the absurdity of using an example of a psychotic parent. It shows how you missed the points altogether. A person with any mental problem or disability cannot be used as example in ethics. This is basic. Thats a NO argument.

Think over it.

I agree you did mention that ethics in extreme cases cannot be applied. I am disappointed that deepthot had not pointed out the mistake in your argument. I say extremes are not at all considered in ethics. It is standard of behaviour and lays down the reasonings for those standards. It would be a frivolous task to use extreme cases of human behaviour, action and thoughts into a subject of ethics. It is stupendous stupidity, if you allow me to say so.

I hope you can explain and defend your counter points like any good debater would, and not indulge in beating round the bush.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » A List of Ethical Principles
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/26/2014 at 11:11:25