Maybe this post is starting to digress into the area of Epistemology, and belongs over in that Forum.

I would like to see this thread return to its original theme: adding value -- as a central focus in, and for, Ethics.

One way we express our values is seen in the priorities we set.

Do we add value as we prioritize what we will do today? is a question we may all ask ourselves. I would like to say a few words here about priorities.

In order to accomplish anything we select from the indefinitely large number of possibilities what you will do each day -- unless you just drift through life and let things happen as they will without setting any goals. There is then no purpose to your life. No matter how rich, talented, or well-connected you are, you can only do so much in the 24 hours of the day ...assuming you want to accomplish something.
This is where our personal hierarchy of values enters the picture. We must make choices. Our value system guides us as to what choices to make.
Everything of value comes at a price: and the price is sacrifice. In order to have anything we must sacrifice other things.
Here is a quotation relevant to the topic.

"In order to play the violin, you must sacrifice the time it takes to learn and practice the instrument. To take the afternoon off and play golf, you must sacrifice the sale you would have made.

"Every time you make a choice, you are expressing your priorities. If you don't like where your life is going, take a good look at your priorities. Not the priorities you claim to have, but the priorities that are revealed by your choices.

Every choice is a decision to sacrifice all the other possibilities. You must decide which possibility is the most important to you at any given time. What are your priorities? Make your choices accordingly."


What do you think? How might I improve the formulation of these points? How can I say it better, so that it will mean more? Does what I wrote in the first post in this thread make sense to you? Thanks for any suggestions.
:listening:

well it is hard to disagree with the general idea although one pithy way of expressing it is 'actions speak louder than words'. There is also another somewhat more subtle point, which is that it is often important to act from a deeper or more immediate point than that of conscious choice or decision. I mean, if you are always consciously weighing up or choosing in that sense, you will become very bogged down because life itself moves a lot faster than thinking. Like with ski-ing or some other active sport, you need to train your reflexes so your body can react instantly - if you have to think about it, it is too late already and you will often crash. So in day to day life your decisions (or reactions) are actually dictated by your attention. The quality of attention you bring to bear on situations will help ensure appropriate action - which is the action the situation calls for.

This, I suppose, is a roundabout way of stressing the importance of 'mindfulness', as distinct from 'thoughtfulness'. Certainly some decisions call for a lot of thought and deliberation, but I think what is needed in life is more of a 'going with the flow' type of ability, which comes from being very attentive to the now, rather than being caught up in thinking.

I couldn't agree more. Malcolm Gladwell makes this point too in his latest book, WHAT DID THE DOG SEE? If we think about something that should be routine by now, after thousands of hours of practice to do it excellently well, we are liable to CHOKE UP, that is, to not do it in our usual smooth top form.

And what you say is why I used the words "with very few exceptions" before the words "we operate out of self-interest"; because I am aware that some of us are continuously MINDFUL. They live in the present moment fully, taking it all in, enjoying it to the utmost, experiencing it deeply. They love naturally and easily, and they find the love in everything, and in every situation.

Thanks for a very important reminder. You have truly added value !

I would like to call everyone's attention to this op-ed editorial that cam out in April of 2009 by David Brooks. It is controversial but it makes some good points:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07Brooks.html?_r=1&scp=1sq=The%20end%20of%20Philosoph%20by%20David%20Brooks&st=cse

I would particularly stress some of the cogent ideas expressed in his final summary paragraphs, such as the following:

The scientists who study morality, he tells us are "good at explaining how people make judgments about harm and fairness, but they still struggle to explain the feelings of awe, transcendence, patriotism, joy and self-sacrifice, which are not ancillary to most people's moral experiences, but central."


As you know, I recently proposed an evolutionary basis for our altruistic impulses and our co-operative behavior. Brooks warns us however that "The evolutionary approach also leads many scientists to neglect the concept of individual responsibility and makes it hard for them to appreciate that most people struggle toward goodness, not as a means, but as an end in itself."

The paradigm offered in my text on ethics which I entitled the COLLEGE COURSE, a link to which is available below, does not neglect individual responsibility but instead emphasizes it, as seen in the novel definition of "morality" presented there. It indicates that we should commit ourselves to improving our self-concept by reaching for higher self-ideals, and actualizing them by aiming to live up to them, as a personal challenge and as a goal we seriously intend to attain. This can be a jooyous endeavor, a fun-project.

I thoroughly agree with Brooks' observation that we make snap moral judgments, that we live by our intuitions, that our factual conclusions are permeated by values, that we evaluate while we are perceiving the world, that we are ruled by our emotions of awe, beauty, appreciation; yes, and disgust. Reason and emotion are inextricable.

We need a shake-up in ethics because the majority in the world are very unclear about their values, very confused -- as evidenced by the moral muck and rampant corruption we find all around. [Anyone of us could easily give examples of this.]

There will be no shake-up (let alone revolution) in ethics unless emotion drives the reasoning, just as well as vice versa. For, as I have said before, emotion is to beliefs as the weather is the barometer readings. But beliefs can be specified and managed whereas we can't define, explain, nor predict emotions: we can analyze propositions; but we know next to nothing about emotions. No psychologist of which I am aware has a comprehensive theory of emotions which I find emotionally-satisfying (i.e., persuasive to me.)

"are united in that they are contructive characteristics, and vices in that they are destructive, both to the self, to others, and to close relationships."

Comments?