The conclusion to be drawn from all this seems to me that we can measure an individual's or a group's actually held values. We could have done this with a show of hands, I suppose, in earlier times. We can trace, perhaps, the change in these values.
But this does not show whether a particular moral value, even less so a code of values, is "good" or even "better" than another.

In Formal Axiology the term "x is a good C" and the term "X is better than Y" are both well-defined in context. This is also true of the term "better for" and the term "ought." As you know, I employ this Axiology as the meta-language for my (theory of) Ethics.

If you read and studied the thread to which the o.p. alluded, and the two citations offered in the third post in that thread, I believe you would say we already know that some sets of moral values are better than others. The set offered in that thread to describe a (morally) "good person" has found wide agreement as a high ideal to whch a person wanting to be highly-moral could aspire. This becomes his/her goal if the individual tells himself: I want to be a good person. I WANT moral health!

If someone is willing to settle for less than the best, so be it: This is very much like a poor person willing to over-pay for an item, or to be defrauded by a con-artist; or one who signs up for a variable-rate mortgage, without reading the terms of the contract, and later pays some consequences when it all goes bust. Another analogy would be a smaoker of cigarettes who says: I know this causes a horrible death by lung cancer or emphezema but I won't make a real effort to break this habit.

The values-measuring technology to which I referred is a quantum leap ahead of a show of hands. It can give you a rating - out to a decimal fraction - of your Responsibility, Ability to work with others smoothly, your Creative capacities, your liability to slip up, your Sensitivity to human life, your Effectiveness, your Self-Awareness, your Anxiety level, your Practicality, Etc., Etc. for 40 more character qualities. Then the ratings are all integrated into a comprehensible report. The Oracle at Delphi told Socrates, "Know Thyself!" This profile really enables a person to do that.

For further details see Appendix One of the manual entitled ETHICS: A College Course, a booklet I scribbled out a while back. It has lots of flaws but you may find a little something of value to you in it.
You may read it HERE: !-- http://tinyurl.com/2mj5b3


{ p.s. I have nothing to sell. I am financially comfortable, and seek no profit, and am engaged in NO commercial ventures. All of the above was for informational purposes only.} All I care about is the advancement of ethics as a knowledge discipline - a "science" in the original sense of the word.

Comments and questions are welcome......

Well obviously this is a very technical approach and displays considerable research and logic. My instinctive reaction is, however, negative, I suppose because I am very suspicious of 'scientism' or the intrusion of scientific methodology into areas beyond its scope. So the idea of a 'self-knowledge kit' - fill in this form and get the result - would, I suspect, be subject to all of the many criticisms that can be levelled at intelligence testing. (Great product idea though - 'Delphic-Oracle-In-A-Box'.)

Anyway, being a spiritually-inclined type of person I have always been very suspicious of intellectual or reductionist explanations of 'why people have spiritual beliefs' which are usually ascribed to brain chemistry (man in white lab coat looks across top of clip-board at me and checks box 'has spiritual beliefs' .

So I would argue that morality, ethics, and the ultimate cause of Righteous Behaviour, has to arise spontaneously from the heart in response to the recognition of the intrinsic beauty and joy of life, and that if one can't see this, it is something that needs to be sought out. Call me a romantic but the statement "morality is a technical term in my system" gives me the uncomfortable feeling that you must therefore be writing from some position superior to morality.

I respect the technical approach for many applications, for example, industrial psychology, dispute resolution and mediation, and so on. Also that you are approaching the topic with sound motivation and no ulterior motives. This is all good. But I will always maintain that the ultimate ground for moral values must be located in the realm of spiritual realisation which is inconveniently unavailable for 'objective' scrutiny.

Anyway I suppose what I have replied with is not really an argument as a statement of feeling. To this I plead guilty and will let others engage in a hopefully more reasoned and constructive dialog with you. Good luck with it.

If people proble into my system deeply enough, they see that it recommends spritual development, and places spirituality as J-Value, which is even higher on the sprectrum than I-Vlue.

I believe it will be quite an accomplishment to get people to a point where they will even set Self-improvement as a goal, let alone aiming even higher !! As you would have learned had you read my earlier thread on The Structure of Conscience, here at the Ethics Forum:
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/ethics/4499-structure-conscience-its-relation-inner-life.html
when one gets in touch with his Inner Self, he gains the insight that we are all connected -- definitely a spiritual view.

Yes - good post. I see what you mean.

When you say "I see what you mean" I'd like to know what you meant by "I see...." What did you read that you can agree with?

Life is larger than logic; but it takes logic to demonstrate that fact !


There is a place for the technical approach in theory building, but as Formal Axiology's hierarchy of values points out: Systemic values are worth the least. We need all three basic values, and use them all the time -- but Intrinsic valuation is the most valuable as basic values go; hence we ought to value intrinsically to get the most value out of life.

We ought to get involved, to seek unity and common ground, to form I-Thou relationships, to strive for Win-Win mutually-beneficial transactions, to fulfil our needs for romance, adventure, and excitement by finding our 'whole world' in one very special person with whom we form a deep commitment and a life-long partnership of sharing.

Eventually we need to affirm: I'm connected. I trust. I know. I'm responsible. I have a single-minded focus on the highest of all high values. My mind and heart are attuned to the love of loves to The Force. . I am loving, wise, prosperous, happy, and free.

What I meant was, when I read that other post you referred to, there is much in there I agree with. As you can probably tell from the kinds of items I post, I am generally anti-materialist and anti-technocratic in my attitude to life. Not that I don't love science and technology, because I do, but I am generally opposed to the "Science Rules" mentality. The post on the Inner Life affirms many of the things I agree with. Hence my comment. (That said, I am unlikely to become a fan of Hartman, because I simply don't have enough time to take on board yet another major philosopher. My reading list is booked out for the time being:bigsmile:)

Thank you for that explanation. I would never claim that "science rules." Yet I note that Natural Philosophy evolved into Natural Science; and that Spinoza, Mill, and Sidgwick, among others, believed that Moral Philosophy would evolve into a Moral Science one day. And sure enough, today we see the rise of Moral Psychology - which is still largely philosophy, but in which experiments in Ethics are performed. To me this is a healthy development.

I am glad that you appreciated my humble effort in that post on Conscience. You do read widely, and some day it is likely you will get around to probing the ideas of R. S. Hartman. The Institute set up in his honor is now issuing a journal: The Journal of Formal Axiology: Theory and Practice. Quite stimulating intellectually. ...worth checking out !