Central Terms of Ethics (which require connection to one another)

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » Central Terms of Ethics (which require connection to one another)

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2009 03:07 pm
As a service to those whose goal is to build a model for ethics that will display the relationship among its (positive) terms and concepts, I have drawn up a list of crucial ideas or concepts relevant in ethical theory-construction. I would like to ask your assistance in making ethics more coherent and explanatory of its data. Will you help by adding to the list, or even better, by connecting some of them. They are as follows:

value
good
integrity
responsibility
morality
peace
inclusivity
ethical radius
appreciation
authenticity
conscience
success
happiness
self-improvement
sincerity
veracity
reliability
moral sensitivity
kindness
caring
emotional intelligence
good conduct
conscientiouness
optimism
altruism
philanthropy
charity
friendship
good will
constructiveness
sustainability
life enhancing
benevolence
enlightened self-interest
double-win
mutual benefit
reciprocity

Can you add to this list of positive concepts?

Can you relate them? If so, show us how you did it.


[Of course, the best way to relate them to one another is to see them as possible interpretations of the terms of some branch of mathematics (or a Releavance Logic) whose terms are already tightly-related to each other by the theory itself.]


Thanks in advance....

Yours for the advancement of ethics,

deepthot
 
Camerama
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 12:12 am
@deepthot,
I think first we must apply reason and eliminate any unnecessary terms. Also, some general, but concrete definitions must be ascribed to each, as these terms are equivocal.

Value
"Value
is a relation of a concept's meaning to its referent's
properties and is always a matter of degree."
Good
That which promotes the subsitence of a rational being
Integrity
An adherence to "your" hierarchy of values. Expressed in degrees, relative to the adherence.
Morality
A code of values and beliefs.
Virtue
The means by which you achieve your values

This has little "value," as the terms are equivocal. Are we trying to define ethics? I propose we isolate our efforts to a singular branch of ethics: Applied, Normative, Meta, and then ascribe (positive) concepts to them....what are your thoughts?





deepthot;108180 wrote:
[Of course, the best way to relate them to one another is to see them as possible interpretations of the terms of some branch of mathematics (or a Releavance Logic) whose terms are already tightly-related to each other by the theory itself.]


Haha this is quite an ambitious task for blooming philosophers, but why not take a stab? I'm interested in an elaboration of the above concept however. Any insight?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 12:18 am
@deepthot,
deepthot;108180 wrote:
As a service to those whose goal is to build a model for ethics that will display the relationship among its (positive) terms and concepts, I have drawn up a list of crucial ideas or concepts relevant in ethical theory-construction. I would like to ask your assistance in making ethics more coherent and explanatory of its data. Will you help by adding to the list, or even better, by connecting some of them. They are as follows:

value
good
integrity
responsibility
morality
peace
inclusivity
ethical radius
appreciation
authenticity
conscience
success
happiness
self-improvement
sincerity
veracity
reliability
moral sensitivity
kindness
caring
emotional intelligence
good conduct
conscientiouness
optimism
altruism
philanthropy
charity
friendship
good will
constructiveness
sustainability
life enhancing
benevolence
enlightened self-interest
double-win
mutual benefit
reciprocity

Can you add to this list of positive concepts?

Can you relate them? If so, show us how you did it.


[Of course, the best way to relate them to one another is to see them as possible interpretations of the terms of some branch of mathematics (or a Releavance Logic) whose terms are already tightly-related to each other by the theory itself.]


Thanks in advance....

Yours for the advancement of ethics,

deepthot


Where is, "right" and "wrong"? "Moral" and "immoral" and, "non moral"? An important theory of ethics is that we can define "right" and "wrong" in terms of "good" and "bad". Right is what produces good consequences, and wrong is what produces bad consequences. The theory is called, "consequentialism". "Good" and "bad", and "right" and "wrong" have always been considered the most important terms in ethics. The others you list are much less important.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 02:23 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;109148 wrote:
Where is, "right" and "wrong"? "Moral" and "immoral" and, "non moral"? An important theory of ethics is that we can define "right" and "wrong" in terms of "good" and "bad". Right is what produces good consequences, and wrong is what produces bad consequences. The theory is called, "consequentialism". "Good" and "bad", and "right" and "wrong" have always been considered the most important terms in ethics. The others you list are much less important.



I agree that "good" and "bad" are most important for ethics. Most every term in my list has an opposite or a negative; I took for granted that readers knew that and could supply the negatives of my positive terms. E.g., "happiness"; "unhappiness." Etc.

As you may be aware, I definte "right" in context as: It is right to be good and to do good. And likewise "wrong" is defined as: It is wrong to be bad and to do bad.

I have discovered a relation between intention and consequences, namely:If my intent and the consequences of my actions are continually badly mis-matched then this points to recurring bad judgment on my part. The speeding driver never intended to hit and kill the young child - but the consequences of his act of speeding made it wrong.

With regard to responsibility, one is not considered to be responsible for actions and circumstances that are beyond one's control.
Moral luck plays a role here.


Since valuation and goodness are matching processes, as explained in my papers, links to which were given in the original post, I like employing the relations of 'a match' and 'a mis-match' to explicate various ethical states and concepts.


I just noticed that justice was left out from that list ...a serious omission which I now want to rectify.


Moral, and Immoral to me are adjectives used in making judgments about morality - which is defined in my essays as a matching (in the case of morality) or a mis-matching (in the case of immorality) between one's ideals [for a human being] and one's conduct. To the degree your actions match (that portion of) your self-image, or Self, concerned with the issue of 'What are the highest aspirations for which a person could reach?' you are moral, you possess morality. Briefly stated, it is self being Self.

"self" = you as a Systemic Value and as an Extrinsic Value. "Self" = you as Intrinsic Value.
When you intrinsically value yourself and others, you are being moral.

As to "non--moral" -- that is the perspective of, for example, the hospital physician, or of a news reporter, in regard to a patient in a bed -- as distinct from the perspective of, say, the patient's close family why may intrinsically value the patient.The latter apply the Ethical perspective.

As you know, I regard morality as moral value: morality has the same structure as value, namely a one-to-one correspondence between two sets, a matching.




 
Deckard
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 02:53 am
@deepthot,
Good terms to include include the three main approaches to ethics:



1) deontology - emphasis on the concept of duty and moral rules

2) consequentialism - emphasis on consequences

3) aretology (or virtue ethics) - emphasis on the concept of virtues and developing moral character.
 
Camerama
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 09:19 am
@deepthot,
Are we gonna try to network this?
 
de budding
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 12:09 pm
@deepthot,
I think the main link between most of the concepts (perhaps bar optimism and enlightenment) is that they don't mean anything without other people; that is, society.
Maybe this suggests removing those concepts that don't maintain their meaning when considered in regard to a lone individual with no social obligation.

Furthermore, I think this consideration can expand our appreciation of 'right' and 'wrong', and why it only seems to matter in regard to other people.

I don't think I'm being very constructive but at the very least... something which links most the listed concepts is the implication of other people.

[Additional Q's I'm asking myself: (a) can we actually 'wrong' ourselves? And (b) are there any universal morals that would exist independent of other people? (c)

Regards,
Dan.
[IMG]file:///C:/Users/Daniel/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]
 
Camerama
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 06:17 pm
@deepthot,
I think to properly create a network of terms, we must deal with human nature in it's pre-political natural state. Also, without a base of reason, and not emotion,there cannot be a system. Ethics must be objective, not subject to mere whim.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 08:11 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;109181 wrote:
Good terms to include include the three main approaches to ethics:



1) deontology - emphasis on the concept of duty and moral rules

2) consequentialism - emphasis on consequences

3) aretology (or virtue ethics) - emphasis on the concept of virtues and developing moral character.



Have you looked over pages 87-91 in the document linked to my signature, below? To me, what you bring up is old stuff. I am looking for something new. True, in the booklet you largely find an aretology.....but a novel way of speaking: a coherent paradigm which would eventually like to integrate all three schools, and a few others besides. Can you help with this project?
 
Deckard
 
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 12:09 am
@deepthot,
(the) Ideal
(the) Perfect
(the) Best
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 12:11 am
@deepthot,
One man's good consequences are another man's bad consequences. Can we really anchor these terms "good" and "bad" and "right" and "wrong" outside of consensus or personal taste?
 
deepthot
 
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2009 12:45 am
@Camerama,
Camerama;109226 wrote:
Are we gonna try to network this?



Please tell us in what sense you are using the word "network"?

Do you mean a Tv network, an electronic network?

Or do you mean the relationships that the parts of a good theory have to each other? In other words, a frame of reference.

If the latter, have you ever read one of my papers (or booklets)? I offer one in the link that you find in the signature below.

Another is entiteled LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, and you can read it here: http://tinyurl.com/24swmd
It is briefer and is a popularization of the more serious effirt unglamorously-named A COLLEGE TEXT -- whichis not so much a textbook as a thought experiment. It does attempt to provide roughly a framework for connecting studies in ethics. ...Check it out. Give me your (constructive) comments on it. Please. [Both manuscripts are to be considered as a whole. They supplement one another.]

p.s. Camerama, I liked the way you joined in the game and actually offered some definitions.

[CENTER]Teamwork enables common people to attain uncommon results.[/CENTER]
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » Central Terms of Ethics (which require connection to one another)
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/21/2020 at 04:30:18