Your quote, [This is not the most-appropriate Forum for speaking about god, or The Force. Such discussions belong in The Philosophy of Religion Forum. Everything I have said there (or here) about God is tentative, and is subject to revision when better ideas come along]

I would never try to offend anyone about there religion, so please forgive me for being honest. I personally would think that religion should never be left out of a serious discussion about ethics as it is a major driving force of ethics. In my opinion many people learn morality and immorality from religion.

Yes, that is, and has been, true. However, I think a book like this, by Robert Fuller, is on a theme more appropriate to ethics. It advocates a Digniitarian Scoiety -- that is, a society where we respect each other's dignity -- and suggests some things we can do in a practical way as a way to get there. Check it out: 1Amazon.com: All Rise: Somebodies, Nobodies, and the Politics of Dignity (BK Currents (Hardcover)): Robert W Fuller: Books

It selects one broad failing of human beings currently, namely, rankism. It tells how to combat it when you encounter it without being offensive. Also it tells in its first few sentences how societies the world over now look down on slavery,, rape, cannibalism, incest, racism, and sexism. He wonders: Why not rankism also? By this he means the exercise of power over other based upon one's social rank.

I am placing this work in the Bibliography of my next booklet, of which I have already about 30 pages completed.

I am not sure if this is relevant but I found it to be interesting LifeWeb: The Biology of Globalization :detective:

and also this SpiritualWiki - Evolution:detective:

Yes, those links are relevant. In the first selection, she tells us about the concpet of the holon, which she learned from Arthur Koestler, and which became an integral part of General Systems Theory.: the cell within the body, withing the couple, within the family, the state, the nation, the human species, the planet, etc. Larger and large systems which include the smaller.

She tells us of another Systems Theory concept: Unity becomes diversification which results in conflict. Then, after negotiation there is a resolution resulting in cooperation and unity. Then the entire cycle repeats. She is a Biologist and is telling us that this goes on between the sub-components of every living organism ...not just on the human level or just the cultural level.

How does all this relate to Ethics?

The autonomous individual who has individuality, and is unique, at times is in conflict with the community, just as in even the best of marriages there is at times some tension, some conflict.

If we can achieve harmony in a married couple it shows we can achieve it in a family. If we can achieve it in family perhaps we can achieve it in our state, in our nation, in our region, in our species, with our environment on the planet. True, there is a high rate of divorce currently in the USA which tells us there is much disharmony. But I like to emphasize the positive, and "latch on to the affirmative -- and don't mess with Mr. Inbetweenn" as the song lyric goes. There are plenty of happy marriages! Let's generalize the result by learning what the secrets are that made them so happy. These "secrets" will constitute the Principles of Ethics.

www.workforworldpeace.org/ethics_as_science.pdf This just screams of ignorence, sorry to say it. But it does not relfect reality, but only a naive idealistic closed enviroment, glaring ignorent of a cutthroat political/buisness world.

Maybe for mental endulgence it's good.

Thank you for that.

This is not the first time that you write in the vein, referring to me, "...glaring ignorent of a cutthroat political/buisness world."I have not ignored the seamy side, the immorality.

The evidence I present now is from the essay in the link below, A Unified Theory of Ethicshttp://tinyurl.com/yzvojzu) below: "par" stands for "paragraph." "p" stands for "page."

p. 6 - top: statement by Ida.

p.9 - 2nd par

p.10 - 2nd par

p.11 - 2nd and 4th pars

p.20 - bottom par

p.21 - top par.

p.23 - 2nd par

p.26 - last par

p. 35 - 2nd par

pp. 37-38

p. 40 - 2nd par

p.41 - 3rd par

p. 45 - 4th par

p.46 - 3rd par

p. 48 - 4th par

p.51 - first par

And p.61 - 3rd par.

As the evidence indicates, I am well-aware of unethical conduct and of the presence of immorality by individuals on this planet.

It is a question of what do you want to emphasize, how awful everything is, or what is working right and can even be better. A pessimist stresses what is going wrong; an optimist stresses what is good and how to make things better. Take your pick.

Optimism correlates with mental and physical health, with making our own luck, with more success and happiness in life.as experimental evidence in Positive Psychology has shown.



"We have eyes but we do not see."

Then prove me wrong please, show that you have a long life experience that you can share with me.

Claiming something is just a claim, proving something is the essence. That aside, only focusing on "puerity" and "good" imo is very fatal.

Back in the days, on many foster homes, monestaries ..etc, children was raised with only knowledge of puerity and good thoughts, these children would never know what evil was, and how to deal with it, and avoid it. They were subject to fraud and manipulation, because they just didn't have the means to deal with real life, this is why so many philosophers fail in their idealistic thinking, such as communism which is good on paper, but fails miserably irl.

Most in here should learn difference between idealistic and optimal scenarios.

This is very frustrating and exasperating! I provide a long list of citations to where I alluded to impurity and the bad ---- and you just have a blind spot and ignore it or can't see what is right before you.

Once Robert Hartman's wife, Rita, could not see the car in her garage because she was so sure in her mind that it would not be there. She checked the garage, looked right at it, but came into the house and insisted it was out someplace when the subject came up. Dr. Hartman told me about it. It made a good anecdote. So I am aware of the phenomenon that psychiatrists speak of as Denial. Usually it is a defense mechanism, but not in this case. Here it was a perception deficit. It is akin to Repression but not the same.

In a recent post I referred readers to the diagnostic manual that psychiatrists use. A link is HERE: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
I did this to show that what's in this book is included in my knowledge background. [I once taught Psychology on the college level. Furthermore I directed a therapy group for a short while and did private counseling. I'm not sure if this is mentioned in my bio on Wiki; I don't recall if it is.] In other posts at this Ethics Forum I have defined precisely the concept "evil." But it is astounding to me that Hex thinks that only he and The Shadow knows about the "evil that lurks in the hearts of me."

My grandfather emigrated to the U.S. in 1900 to escape being forcibly conscripted into the Russian army. I was an activist in my 20s protesting by illegal sit-ins, at shipyards in Connecticut where they were launched, the first use of nuclear weapons in submarines; being arrested many times; going to jail for a length of time as a conscientious objector; taking an active part in the very early phases of the Civil Rights Movement, in the 1950s, and facing open violence and hostility as we integrated eating places and public swimming pools in the South and in St. Louis. I not only advocate nonviolence and direct action; I practiced it, and lived it. ...And this guy has the chutzpah to question whether I know what people are capable of.

My idealism is tempered with realism. [In previous posts here, and in LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, i have defined the term "realist."] As the song lyrics Judy Colins sang says "I've seen both sides now."
{I hung out with her when we were together in The March on Washington in 1963, where Dr. King delivered his "I have a dream"" speech.March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. She was close to Joan Baez who I met back in the '50s. Joanie and I were both from the Boston/Cambridge area. She was just getting started as a professional singer.} At Brandeis Univ. I studied under Abraham Maslow who was Chairman of my department at the time. Later I went into Philosophy studying (unofficially)at M.I.T. at first. I couldn't even consider going to college until I was 26, for I had to work to support the family: I have four younger sisters. My father sold newspapers in The Great Depression as the only way to survive. The only way I could go to college was on full scholarships.

I got my B.A. in 3 years at B. U. My Masters in 8 months at The U. of C. , [in those days it was possible.] and my doctorate in 2 years by skipping the parties and the social whirl. It can be done - if one applies himself.

In those papers that Hex skimmed over I do accentuate the positvie and (nearly) eliminate the negative. I latch on to the affirmative .....as an old Bing Crosby song recommends. ....Guilty as charged. But the list of places where I tell of human badness and madness { - such as when I cite Fritz Haarmann, the mass murderer Fritz Haarmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; on p. 27 of ETHICS: A College Course. http://tinyurl.com/2mj5b3 In that book the entire Chapter Nine is devoted to the topic of Selfishness, and I even define the term - } ...the list is long. I have studied Michel Foucault's book on punishment: Discipline and Punish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As to how to avoid becoming an immoral person, I have given more than a few suggestions in my five books, and patiently explained it is a matter of one's character. And I told how a good character is formed and develops. My aim is to give folks know-how in self-improvement, to enable and to facilitate moral growth. You don't do that by dwelling and harboring on the negative!!

We here all know the world is a mess! The Introduction to LIVING THE GOOD LIFE talks about current-day slavery, for example. We know there are corrupt politicians and executives at companies. We know people can be devious, can lie, and cheat. We don't need Hex nor anyone to remind us.

That is not news. Books come out every day of the week telling how there is war and immorality,, financial manipulation and every other kind of manipulation. The Ethical Fallacies enumerated in the College Course go into that (on pp. 30-31). Pentagon theorists speak of "kill ratios", showing how expendable they think masses of people are. Why in heaven would he think we are unaware of this???!!!

../crawls up in the tree ..avoiding the angry mob with pitchforks, torches and a noose!

I have now re-read this thread, and seen I'v left out some posts, I will make a new post later to be more constructive, instead of just being overly negative and paint everything black.

I will try slap myself in the face and avoid my usually stupid attitude.

My good deepthot

I have come to the conclusion that I can't put anything in a posetive way that you will accept, my nature of personallity are just too negativily based, only should you accept my weird behaviour I will write you my critisism.

Know that my critisism will be mostly negativly based, and with very little posetive remarks, therefore it is up to you if you want it, or not.