you can call them ideologies if you like but at the end of the day it's just some power freak brainwashing the gullible.

'good'? Take a chair, for example.

You have a picture in your mind as to what features a chair could have; and if this chair has all those qualities you'd likely call it a good one. So a 'good chair' has everything a chair is supposed to have. Of course, everyone might have a different picture with different qualities in mind, but the basic idea is that what makes anything good is for it to be 'all there' under the name you put on it.

Now that we know what the word "good" means, we can ask the question about what makes a good person.

That person is one who educates himself, or herself, to do what is truly in his self-interest and who is able to see that "selfishness" is something distinctly different than "self-interest." Allow me to explain. Wisdom is knowing others and enlightenment is knowing yourself [The point to notice is that ethics is not just 'a matter of opinion,' and 'totally subjective,' as some would try to tell you. It can be objective and universal.]

As Dr. Stephen Pinker says, "In many areas of life two parties are objectively better off if they both act in a nonselfish way than if each of them acts selfishly. You and I are both better off if we share our surpluses, rescue each other's children in danger, and refrain from shooting at each other, compared with hoarding our surpluses while they rot, letting the other's child drown while we file our nails, or feuding like the Hatfields and McCoys."

"Granted, I might be a bit better off if I acted selfishly at your expense and you played the sucker, but the same is true for you with me, so if each of us tried for these advantages, we'd both end up worse off. Any neutral observer, and you and I if we could talk it over rationally, would have to conclude that the state we should aim for is the one in which we both are unselfish." (emphasis added.) It's in the nature of things that if we educate ourselves enough we come to develop this insight about our true self-interest. We reach this understanding. Does that make sense?

Quote:

To summarize my suggestion, the lesson you have written would be OK for a college age class, but if you really wish to have it work for younger students, you need to engage the students in the process of discovery of these principles. To truly make moral behavior a part of their lives, the plan should include a number of activities in which they are given a chance to make moral choices, even if only in a game. Better than a game would be a project of some sort that would be carried out by the class.

As an example, you might want to look at the Full Circle Learning paradigm that has worked so well in a number of difficult social environments: Full-Circle Learning

Quote:

{The plan is to get this lesson and its concepts taught in elementary and high-schools as part of their standard curriculum. Can you facilitate this project? Can you restate it in simpler language that even a child would understand? Can you provide an illustration, some imagery, or a story?}

Comments?

---------- Post added 02-05-2010 at 10:12 PM ----------

deepthot;118372 wrote:

I am now in the process of writing a new book, which I will entitle A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS: with applications to issues.

I would like to ask your help on this project. What do you believe I should include? What major topics should be analyzed? What would you say are essential chapters to cover?

Thank you in advance for your ideas on how to make this a book truly worth reading.

As it is, I am writing it as a dialog among a group of people, like a conversation; it has improved readability but it tends to fragment, or distract from the logical thread exhibited in my "college text" which moves from basic assumptions to meta-ethics, to prescrptive principles (theorems), to applications ...applications such as to: the waging of war as a violation of the means-ends relationship.
Should I just incorporate all of this into the new book, just saying it in more popular language, and abbreviating it?

It seems that if I aim for the academics, the philosophers, I "snow" the layperson readers, the person in the street. And if I go for the latter as my audience, I cannot argue sufficiently to suit the philosophers, for then the 'regualr' guys and gals get bored. That is a tension I encounter.

Should I jut forget all about it, and let the writers of stories for children's books be the teachers of ethics and morals? Or is what I am attempting to do going to supply material for them to weave into their stories and illustrations?

I could use a little motivational help here -- the field is so vast. I'd like to know what I should really emphasize?

Perhaps I'll end up putting it out in serial form, a few chapters at a time -- at the risk of losing the continuity. For if this runs to volumes the question arises who will bother to (take the time to) read it? Is there an audience for it at all? My wife says "nobody cares" enough about ethics; that most people are too focused on just satisfying their basic needs, and in the little time they have after that, in spectator sports or games, or solving a crossword puzzle.

What say you?

I suggest that you collaborate with a good story-teller/story writer. Rather than (or in addition to) a dialogue, illustrate your points with stories that are from real life situations.

"So, even though I believe that the promulgation of an evolved form of religion (the Baha'i Faith) is the best means for ensuring the advancement of civilization"

The idea of "an evolved form of religion" is not new at all. Pantheists, buddhists and gnostics have always taught that you can attain your own salvation by means of "self-evolution". Of course that sounds very attractive for an ego that has never experienced the humble submission a true believer experiences before his Creator, who being the One who made us, really knows better what`s best for us.

1CellOfMany said: "So, even though I believe that the promulgation of an evolved form of religion (the Baha'i Faith) is the best means for ensuring the advancement of civilization"

The idea of "an evolved form of religion" is not new at all. Pantheists, buddhists and gnostics have always taught that you can attain your own salvation by means of "self-evolution". Of course that sounds very attractive for an ego that has never experienced the humble submission a true believer experiences before his Creator, who being the One who made us, really knows better what`s best for us.

When I saw this thread-starting post, I was struck by the fact that you were, in part, answering a question that I have been thinking to ask in a thread: "For those of you in this forum who do not believe that religion is necessary (or even beneficial), what do you propose as an alternative means for establishing and maintaining the foundations of a civilized society?".....
At this point, if you are dealing with a classroom of young people, it is important to get them involved in thinking about the answer to the question. So, ask them to contribute their ideas about what makes a chair a good chair. (That is, let them identify the properties of a good chair.)


...Does my edit make the concept clearer without diminishing the meaning that you wish to convey? (BTW, I have begun reading from the Hartman Institute website: HOME PAGE.)

...You would do better to give concrete examples of selfishness and self-interest that illustrate your point.... more meaningful to your audience if it related to examples that they have experience of.

[...To summarize my suggestion, the lesson you have written would be OK for a college age class, but if you really wish to have it work for younger students, you need to engage the students in the process of discovery of these principles. To truly make moral behavior a part of their lives, the plan should include a number of activities in which they are given a chance to make moral choices, even if only in a game. Better than a game would be a project of some sort that would be carried out by the class.

As an example, you might want to look at the Full Circle Learning paradigm that has worked so well in a number of difficult social environments: Full-Circle Learning ....-------- Post added 02-05-2010 at 10:12 PM ----------
I suggest that you collaborate with a good story-teller/story writer. Rather than (or in addition to) a dialogue, illustrate your points with stories that are from real life situations.

Thank you, 1CellOfMany.
And thank you profoundly for telling us about the Full-Circle Learning activities in Southern California and in Africa. The teachers and trainers there seem to have independently stumbled up the very principles I am attempting to advance in my ethics writings. It's a nice synchronicity.

You are correct that I am model-building a secular Ethics that has the potential of "establishing and maintaining the foundations of a civilized society" as you put it. {Many atheists and agnostics like it until they find out I believe in God -as I define it - and do feel that I believe that religion serves a useful purpose - provided it is an enlightened religion, not a primitive or tribal one with 11th century concepts dominating it.}

Why aren't you still a science teacher?

Sword, it appears that you are confusing two concepts with one another: When I used the term "an evolved form of religion" I was not speaking of "attaining ... salvation by means of 'self-evolution'".


I d` rather not use the word "evolution" but progression because evolution has to do with pagan pantheist world views that have nothing to do with a truly biblical perspective. By the way there can be no more new religions:
Galatians 1:7-9

7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

This thread is becoming digressed from its original intent.

The issue is what is the essence of Social Ethics? What are the character traits of 'the (morally) good person? Can you agree that 'We stand or fall together'? Are you ready, as some of us are, to apply this to the entire planet, Earth?


Those who want to continue discussing religion might consider moving the discussion over to the two religious forums....

Talking about morality without religion is like talking about life without oxygen.

...We are still fellow-sufferers. We are still connected in so many ways., connected to one another; although many of us are still not conscious of that fact. They lack awareness. At our inner core, we ARE aware of it. That's why it is to our benefit that we come to know our inner Self, come to see the interdependence, the connections.



I said, early in the post, that something is "good" if it has it all. That is, if it has every quality that you suppose things-of-that-sort to have, you will speak of it as good. But what if it has less than all? Then it is "valuable." Then we have other value words, other adjectives, to describe it:
.
.
.
So whether something is 'bad' or 'good' all depends upon the name we put on it. A good nag is a bad horse. A bad residence could be 'a good slum dwelling.' The gift of the optimist is to name things so we can call them "good.". Optimism is a wonderful quality to have. It's an asset. Pessimism is a lack of vision. It's a deficit. The pessimist is out of kilter and is the killer of hope and encouragement. We need more optimists in this world. Every true realist has to be part optimist.)


For further clarification on many of these concepts, see my treatise entitled ETHICS: A College Course, Here, safe to open, is a link to it: http://tinyurl.com/2mj5b3

Also, you may want to check out a version of it for the non-philosopher, for the layman. It is more readable. Its title is LIVING THE GOOD LIFE. You will find it Here:
http://tinyurl.com/24swmd

A thought regarding Intrinsic value: Even though one may perceive that a particular person has a unique value to one, as in "How can we tell when someone is I-valuing something? They focus; give it their attention, and come to identify with it. If they I-value a person they get involved with that person. They see qualities in the person that others, who aren't so close, don't see. To illustrate, it is the way many of us felt about our mother when we small children. That is an example of Intrinsic valuation.", I believe that Hartman intended that every human on earth has Intrinsic value, whether we are interested in them or not. We might say that, "person A has E value to me in so far as his characteristics match those of the ideal employee in the position for which I am interviewing him," but regardless of his E value in that context, any person who comes in off the street has I value because he or she is a person! In the same example, the employer's beliefs about what characteristics an employee should have to work in the position that is to be filled have S value only in so far as a person who fits those characteristics is actually a good fit for the position. By the same token, the blueprint of a house has S value to the degree that a house built to those exact specifications has sufficient E value to a potential buyer that the sale will bring a decent profit. If the blueprint has doors that are only 4 feet tall, or a staircase that is extremely steep, or some other such characteristic that does not have E value to a buyer, then the blueprint is lacking in S value. But, in the end it is the buyer, who, in himself has I value due to being a person and one who "values". This is the meaning of the hierarchy of values, as I see it:

All People have Intrinsic value. This value is infinite because all lesser values (in this model) come from people who define them. (Hartman also suggested that things might hold I value if we relate to them as we do to a person, as in the case of the Queen and the crown jewels, in that she holds the jewels in trust, and they are a symbol of the nation.)

People hold those concepts of things, those lists of characteristics of what, say, a good house or a good salesman is. It is from comparison with those characteristics that the Extrinsic value of an instance of the category is determined.

[I may be fuzzy on this, but I think that:] Systematic value can be used to describe a set of characteristics that a person holds in their mind to describe a category. I may think that a good car salesman is a person who will not take "no" for an answer, and who uses high pressure tactics to "close the deal." This character set that I have in my mind has low systemic value in the context of society (people will waste their money on things they don't need, they will have regrets about their purchase, etc.) and in the context of my business (people will warn others not to go to that dealer to buy a car, "They pressured me into buying this Pinto!") Again, people, who have Intrinsic value, are the determiners of the S value as well.

(I think the model [in terms of E values] may break down at the point where one can say, "all of these structures fit all of my criteria for 'house', but there are other criteria that I have that make a house a 'good' house, like having a fireplace and a jacuzzi, and a patio with an outdoor kitchen, etc." That is, to merely say that something is "good" because it fits the criteria for the concept of the category is not sufficient, as there may be specific "extra criteria" that are valued in themselves, but are not considered germane to defining the category.)

What do you think?

That has been the case in the past. I (who am intoxicated with God) am working to develop a secular ethics, for I believe all the agnostics and atheists of the world -- and all those with contradictory and confrontational, exclusionary religions -- need an Ethics too.

The ethics already exist. Since when do we need ethics crafted by you? I can't help but think that my ethics just don't stand up to your personal opinions dictated by your theocracy. So you want to impose them onto me and call them secular. Well good luck with that, but I can already tell you, that you will fail.

Talking about morality without religion is like talking about life without oxygen.

...Trying to get rid of religion may never hapen ...I know that many believe that there is no God but for as long as there has been writen history and before, "it seems that we had to have something. example the sun, moon, animals, men, woman and so on. I also see where it has a use with someone who has no hope at all. I hate to lie but I am not sure that man will advance. What I mean by lieing is to say that you belive in God so that you may be able to teach reason and logic to believers.....