Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Let's get down to basics: what after all is Ethics?

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Let's get down to basics: what after all is Ethics?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Many of us wonder: What is Ethics? And Why bother studying it? Aristotle can be rightly said to be the founder (or compiler) of our field of study. Learning from Socrates, Plato, and other philosophers - of which there were many in the heyday of the classical Athens city-state - he gave a series of lectures at his school, adding in his own ideas, and he entitled his lecture series Ethica, thus giving our field its name.

Although Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Machiavelli (during their pessimistic moods) have strayed from the wisdom taught by Aristotle, I believe Aristotle was correct in viewing our Forum's topic of study as 'The good life for the good person.' That's what ethics is.

This is how we are to look at ethics. We have to answer two major questions:

1)Who is the good person?

2)What would be the good life for that person, or for a group of such persons? And what behaviors or conduct are appropriate for such a life?

Therefore - since "good" is the basic notion here - it is logical and reasonable to consider the Form of the Good (which was the major concern of Plato, according to Raphael Demos, Paul Friedlander and other Plato scholars.) Plato's quest, his objective, was to seek a definition of "good." {See the Eidos and the Republic, 504d.} And he was referring to moral virtue when he ranked this inquiry as the most important of all topics.

Valuation - as Robert S. Hartman has demonstrated - is a matching process. It is a matching between two sets. M. L. Abercrombie, in her book, THE ANATOMY OF JUDGMENT (London: Hutchison, 1960) on p. 156, explains that our minds operate with two distinct kinds of meaning, one concerned with sense, and one concerned with what we will speak of as application. This is roughly analogous to the intension and to the extension of a concept. Both are conceptual, although the latter involves perceptions [sense impressions] and refers to the outside world. Let us simplify by stipulating that the first set is comprised of property names and the second set consists of perceived properties. Value (or quality) is a one-to-one correspondence between the two sets.

Goodness is full value, a complete matching. Hartman has spelled out the details in his magnum opus: THE STRUCTURE OF VALUE (Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press, 1967) now a rare classic.

Since value is a match between sets let us inquire: Can sets have sizes? Yes, the size is called the cardinality. It is a property of sets. Thanks to Georg Cantor we now know that there are three possible sizes. They are: finite, denumerable, and nondenumerable. The first are limited but elastic; the next are countable and happen to be the size of the set of integers; the latter are uncountable and share a cardinality with the real numbers including the transcendental numbers. Based upon the three fundamental set sizes we can deduce that the meaning sets provide us with three basic value dimensions, as in the following derivation:

From the axiom of value - its definition, as a function of meaning - we can thus derive three dimensions of value based upon how rich they are in meaning: They are named, respectively, from least to most, Systemic Value, Extrinsic Value, and Intrinsic Value. They are abbreviated: S, E, and I. These dimensions have so many philosophically-relevant applications. For those who are interested I will email to you a brief paper with a summary of more than 30 applications listed ...yet that's just a beginning; and you will see how the dimensions generate new definitions of terms prolifically. The fertility of these concepts will be most evident.

Employing these dimensions of value as tools we are enabled to derive an entire ethical model, a rudimentary theory of Ethics upon which you can build. It leads to many fertile branches of research. A link is provided at the end of this post. When you read the document you may skip over the technicalities, the foundational stuff, and go direct to the section What Is Ethics?, chapter 6 ff, in the College Course. {It would perhaps have been a better booklet if it had quiz questions at the end of each chapter - but you can make up your own.}

All this has been an effort to answer the perennial question What is Ethics?

Why bother studying it? It will help make you a good person and (if the enterprise is successful) will give you guidelines to the really good life. Then you can flourish.

@deepthot,

Wow, that was interesting. I liked the last half better than the first. I'm not much on looking at ethics mathematically. I really appreciate the focus on knowing oneself. I think that is a key ingredient to ethical behavior.

@Arjuna,

Arjuna;97320 wrote:

Wow, that was interesting. I liked the last half better than the first. I'm not much on looking at ethics mathematically. I really appreciate the focus on knowing oneself. I think that is a key ingredient to ethical behavior.

Thanks, Arjuna.
Yes, eventually we are to know ourselves; choose ourselves; create ourselves; and give ourselves. Those are the Four Cs of ethics. [I know....they don't all begin with "C."]

Ethics is hot.

Ethics is cool.

It's both!

@Arjuna,

Arjuna;97320 wrote:

Wow, that was interesting. I liked the last half better than the first... I really appreciate the focus on knowing oneself. I think that is a key ingredient to ethical behavior.

I would like to ask you a question, Arjuna. When you write "I liked the last half better than the first" are you referring to the post that started this thread, or are you referring to the booklet, a link to which is found in my signature? When I spoke of "science" in that document I meant "a body of cumulative knowledge" or "a field of study." Have you read Anthony Appiah's book: EXPERIMENTS IN ETHICS (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2008).

That focus on knowing oneself I infer you found in the booklet, and if that is the case I am impressed that you read the whole thing. I admire that you did not give up before you got to the end. As I see it, self-improvement is a large part of the ethical enterprise. As we become more effective, more moral, and our efficient in our morality we set an example for others to do the same. As ethical behavior spreads all human activity becomes more harmonious and fulfilling. The individual and society will then flourish, as Aristotle (and many other since) envisioned.

@deepthot,

deepthot;97477 wrote:

I would like to ask you a question, Arjuna. When you write "I liked the last half better than the first" are you referring to the post that started this thread, or are you referring to the booklet, a link to which is found in my signature? When I spoke of "science" in that document I meant "a body of cumulative knowledge" or "a field of study." Have you read Anthony Appiah's book: EXPERIMENTS IN ETHICS (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2008).

That focus on knowing oneself I infer you found in the booklet, and if that is the case I am impressed that you read the whole thing. I admire that you did not give up before you got to the end. As I see it, self-improvement is a large part of the ethical enterprise. As we become more effective, more moral, and our efficient in our morality we set an example for others to do the same. As ethical behavior spreads all human activity becomes more harmonious and fulfilling. The individual and society will then flourish, as Aristotle (and many other since) envisioned.

Yea... I didn't know the booklet was your signature... I thought it was part of your post. It was a lot of information. No, I haven't read Appiah's book... what's it about?

I've spent a lot of my life thinking about morality. Could you explain what's meant by ethical enterprise?

@Arjuna,

Arjuna;97487 wrote:

Yea... the booklet was ... a lot of information. No, I haven't read Appiah's book... what's it about?

I've spent a lot of my life thinking about morality. Could you explain what's meant by ethical enterprise?

Greetings, Arujuna

Dr. Appiah's book is a series of lectures he gave to Bryn Mawr College Philosophy students and faculty. It tells how more and more philosophers believe that getting some facts, via running experiments, or getting results of experiments done, is now the thing to do, the way to go, in moral philosophy. This is an alternative to just supposing, or asserting that people believe such-and-such -- as Witgenstein often did - or speculating that people behave in some specific way. It's a good read. He attacks the dispositional school among virtue ethicists.

You say you think a lot about morality. How did you like my choice of the term "morality" to be the interpretation of the formula x is a member of the (unit) class X. We have an ideal - a set of beliefs; a value-pattern - (as part of our self-image) that goes with X, our proper name. We have an actuality, x, (associated with our body and our behavior and conduct.) And the question becomes: does our actuality correspond with (match up with) our ideal(s).

To the degree that it does, morality is present. To the extent that it doesn't, hypocrisy is present ---pretty neat, eh?

The issue then is: Are we true to our (own true) Self?
If we are true to our true Self then we have some morality; if we are completely true then we have authenticity, or wholeness. We are real !! Many an artist is true to what he deeply believes and strives to express it in his/her art.

I greatly admire the native American culture and sense of spirituality, and its oneness with nature, and natural forces. The native-Americans have so much to teach us, if would only learn !

By "the ethical enterprise" I meant: the study and practice of Ethics. I also meant to include any research done to expand the theoretical and empirical import (as spoken of by philosophers of science) of this branch of study.

I believe we all do the best we know how. If we knew any better, we would do better. We are ignorant (of what is in our best interest; or of what is the best way to behave and to live.) And if we are not ignorant of what to do, we are ignorant of how to do it best, or of how to motivate ourselves to get going doing it. So once we really know these things, we will know enough to act on them. And we will be a better people.

It is the task of Ethics to teach us, to dispel this ignorance; to civilize us, to make us more effective human beings; to make it clear without question, beyond any doubt, that we are all one family of brothers and sisters, the human species -- the animals who are bipeds, the primates who love to play, to play games and sports, solve puzzles, etc.; who speak advanced tongues; who write poetry and compose funky pictures; who reflect on our own reflections, who define ourselves, etc., etc.

@deepthot,

My understanding of morality is the same as yours. In a lot of courthouses there's a statue or picture of a blind-folded woman holding out the scales of justice. She's weighing the actuality against the ideal.. which is described in the law. The blindfold shows impartiality... so that the status of the accused isn't part of the judgement.

Fear and greed can distort the decisions of a judge. A good judge is free of them.

So imagine a person who sits down at his desk at work at 9 pm... and it comes to him: he has betrayed his own integrity. He never realized how easily it happens. He knew he was operating in a grey zone... but he was thinking "I'm a good person." Now he sees the truth. He's been trying so hard to win. He wasn't paying attention. And that's how it happened.

He has a choice now... listen to that voice saying: this is the way it's done.. oh grow up, everybody goes through this, this what you have to do to win... the chance you have here is rare... it might never come again.. He can ignore the pang of guilt and proceed on.

Or he can realize that it's better to go to his grave having failed to achieve the one thing he thought his life was about, to die a complete failure.. than to win by betraying himself. He can realize that in the end it comes to this: how did you affect the world: did you make it a little more crappy? Did you make it harder for people to trust each other? Did you send more abuse out into the world like pebbles in a pond? If so, what does it matter that you won?

To realize that the brass ring doesn't matter releases him. He's free now.... free of the greed and fear that left him subject to temptation.

Subsequently, it may turn out that the chance he had was unique... or he may discover that there's actually more than one way to get something done.

That kind of thing is why I'm not sure what an experimental approach to things would show. See what I mean?

@Arjuna,

Arjuna;97540 wrote:

My understanding of morality is the same as yours. In a lot of courthouses there's a statue or picture of a blind-folded woman holding out the scales of justice. She's weighing the actuality against the ideal.. which is described in the law. The blindfold shows impartiality... so that the status of the accused isn't part of the judgement.

Fear and greed can distort the decisions of a judge. A good judge is free of them.

So imagine a person who sits down at his desk at work at 9 pm... and it comes to him: he has betrayed his own integrity.... Now he sees the truth. He's been trying so hard to win. He wasn't paying attention. And that's how it happened.

He has a choice now... listen to that voice saying: this is the way it's done....He can ignore the pang of guilt and proceed on.

Or he can realize that... in the end it comes to this: how did you affect the world: did you make it a little more crappy?
[or] Did you make it harder for people to trust each other? Did you send more abuse out into the world like pebbles in a pond? If so, what does it matter that you won?...

That kind of thing is why I'm not sure what an experimental approach to things would show. See what I mean?

No, I don't see how your conclusion in re "an experimental approach" follows from your earlier discussion of a case study. Is there a sound argument here?
{See my last paragraph, below, for my comment on this man in your excellent illustration of a moral crisis taking place.}

The experimental approach to which I referred would be the testing of this person's values early on in his career to reveal to him at what he would excel so that he can better do what he loves and what brings out his best strengths; as well as the accompanying life-coaching to help him (via encouragement) pursue some noble goal that he freely chose for himself.
Those value tests can be [and are being] used to learn what a person is doing that is self-defeating and counter-productive.
Results learned by the community of ethicists can lead to better, more relevant and vital, coaching in the future.

Dr Appiah tells about an experiment that shows that if - for example - people smell pleasant odors they are more likely to be a 'good samaritan' than if they didn't The external conditions put them into 'a good mood.'

The man you describe in your illustration fits right in with my proposed definition of (in this case, low) morality; and also with my discussion of the conscience in an earlier thread I posted here. Do you agree? See this link:
http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/ethics/4499-structure-conscience-its-relation-inner-life.html

And, in appendix One of the following link a description of the values test, and a little of what it can do, is offered. Did you notice that when you studied the manuscript?

@deepthot,

deepthot;98245 wrote:

The experimental approach to which I referred would be the testing of this person's values early on in his career to reveal to him at what he would excel so that he can better do what he loves and what brings out his best strengths; as well as the accompanying life-coaching to help him (via encouragement) pursue some noble goal that he freely chose for himself.
Those value tests can be [and are being] used to learn what a person is doing that is self-defeating and counter-productive.
Results learned by the community of ethicists can lead to better, more relevant and vital, coaching in the future.

Befor I say anything else, know this: I hate spam as much as any of you do and wish to avoid it at all costs. This is NOT spam. This is just information as to what is available.
In that paragraph from the previous post a reference was made to a values test. That test - I have just learned - as well as a (somewhat simplified) method of scoring it, is being given away free on the internet. If any reader cares to avail himself or herself of the insight it has to offer, go ahead, take the test if you wish, and receive the assessment of your personal test. Then - if you choose - take advantage of the affirmations (or self-statements) that, when repeated often enough, transform your life in a more-positive and more-valuable direction. It comes complete with audio accompaniment. It is all free of charge, [...unless someone wants to go further and make a career out of administering the life-coaching that could follow up on the test; then it could get commercial. I have no connection with the outfit that gives the test, nor with any of the personnel who offer jobs. I have no interest in nor do I profit from it if one does choose to go further. ]
Here is a link:

Intentional Creation : Your External World

@deepthot,

Human nature hasn't changed in 3000 years: With very few exceptions, we still operate out of self-interest.

So the question then becomes: What is truly in our self-interest?

In a song someone asked Alphie: "What's it all about?"

Wise men say -- as they offer an answer to the earlier question -- and in the process also responding to Alphie's inquiry -- To have health is in our self-interest. To have some wealth is also -- at least enough to sustain us and to fulfill some of our basic needs.

Happiness has been held up as a goal for which to aim. No one can deny that it is well to have money, health and happiness.

Yet there is an even higher goal, one that gives us even greater fulfillment: it is to have a meaningful life. ...And that's what it's all about.

How is this achieved? One way is to get involved in a project that many would agree is extremely worthwhile.

For example, answering the two questions: What does it take to make peace? And will we do what it takes to make peace?

Another way is to help make social ethics a living reality. To implement in concrete ways the motto, "Each for all and all for each." is to bring social ethics to life. It is an awareness that we each will flourish best when all others have the opportunity to bring out their talents and develop their unique gifts. A recommended affirmation is "I'm aware that I'll do better when everyone does better."

Peace is an ethical concept. For those who may care to get involved in peace-making, in applied moral philosophy, in some activism, here are some relevant links to follow:
Sign In to DoPeace - DoPeace

The Peace Alliance - Campaign for a Department of Peace and Youth PROMISE Act - Home Page

If you want to pursue theoretical Ethics in more depth, you may consider a perusal of my booklet which has been published originally for Curriki.org and is now freely available for you to read and study. Here is a link to it.

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Let's get down to basics: what after all is Ethics?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Let's get down to basics: what after all is Ethics?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know