It is hard to read your post reasoning logic. You should try to break your writing into coherent paragraphs.

-

Yes I do agree, The sentences seem to run together. I will need to learn how to properly structure these sentences.

Based on the title of you thread, I have a feeling it is incoherent. Based on the paragraph/sentence structure (or lack thereof), I think I may be right.

I don't understand where violence comes into play into what you want to talk about. There are rarely, if ever, paradigm shifts within ethics. It is not like a society ever decides to shift from utilitarianism to deontology at any given moment that would result in this so-called paradigm shift.

Based on the title of you thread, I have a feeling it is incoherent. Based on the paragraph/sentence structure (or lack thereof), I think I may be right.

I don't understand where violence comes into play into what you want to talk about. There are rarely, if ever, paradigm shifts within ethics. It is not like a society ever decides to shift from utilitarianism to deontology at any given moment that would result in this so-called paradigm shift.

(Emphasis added.)

If ever??

There are paradigm shifts within ethics. I've proposed one myself. I put together some things you've read here before and added some new material to produce a treatise (a booklet) entitled 'A Unified Theory of Ethics." I consider it quite a shift. I hope it becomes the conventional wisdom. Eventually, I hope every philosopher will say that he (or she) thought of it first. To get the picture it must be read all the way through to the end. Here, safe to open, is a link to it:
http://tinyurl.com/yeneyhv

Within it you will find in this new frame of reference is some emphasis on consequences, some emphasis on character (virtue theory); and some incorporation of Kantian ethics. I want eventually for it to be made into a complete synthesis. This will require the contributions of all of you.... [meaning the members here at the Forum. Let's construct it together, cooperatively -- like the Linux programs were done.] The framework has been provided.

Happy reading !

I have read 42 pages so far and yes it is good reading. I just wish many more people took ethics as serious as you do. I do believe that we need to find a way to get the layman intrested as I think it will require them to make a shift. I am not sure that you mean this. [I hope every philosopher will say that he (or she) thought of it first]
Because if it were true, I would not be sure that they learned ethics. [ meaning that they were lieing about thinking of it first.

Could you imagine a person that when taught reason, logic and ethics by forms of parables and fables?.... Having this new wisdom, Being able to hear and understand the words of wisdom being spoken to him, where as before he was deafly ignorant and not able to hear or make sense of them. He is now able to see the way that he should behave where as before he was as blind as I am walking with this blindfold of ignorance stumbling threw life as if he were crippled as if he were spiritually dead. The unexamined life is not worth living. Did the therapeutae believe that man was spiritually dead? ... Could they have viewed this transformation as if they made the blind see, the deaf hear, the crippled to walk and resurrected the spiritualy dead, and so on and so on?.......If you learned ethics and thought that you were just as important as anyone else and that you should not be pushed around nor should you push others around. With this new knowledge of right and wrong and with you sharing it with everyone around. It may have seemed to be a very big threat to the ruling power.... Everyone may start to view some of ruler's ways to be wrong......If you keep spreading truth of ethics around and large numbers of people start to follow you, the rulers may see you as a threat and have you punished or even terminated.......It would be very hard for one who gains wealth directly or indirectly by unethical means to allow a paradigm shift in ethics to take hold. Anyone who has a general knowledge of neuroscience and biology should be well aware that there will never be a perfect utopia, But could it be possible for every family to be more advanced in all areas of interest if mankind were more tuned with true ethics? ...What are true ethics? ...Well maybe we can not know, but could we be better off than what we are now if We spent more time in this field? Or would this bring greater division?.... Thanks for any comments or corrections. You will not hurt my feelings. have I wandered far from logic?

There are rarely, if ever, paradigm shifts within ethics. It is not like a society ever decides to shift from utilitarianism to deontology at any given moment that would result in this so-called paradigm shift.

. I do believe that we need to find a way to get the layman intrested as I think it will require them to make a shift. I am not sure that you mean this. [I hope every philosopher will say that he (or she) thought of it first]
Because if it were true, I would not be sure that they learned ethics. [ meaning that they were lieing about thinking of it first.

...I would tend to believe that humans are essentially animalistic. It is by virtue of some thoughtful men and women, the human society hurned from an essentially savage state ...and eventually has progessed to a civilised state of living, into which you and me has been born. These changes do bring paradigm shifts. It happens while any tradition is questioned....

The very nature and concept of ethics suggests that it was not bottom-up but top-down.

Hi....... we are meeting for the first time, ...a big hello to you

I have frankly not read your..... link. I will do that, as the first few pages seems interesting. So no quarrels as of now.

Now to the top-down issue. Yes, you are almost correct. The point here is that humans as a society is a mutual understanding collective. Of thoughts and actions.

When thought progressed, it has revealed itself in a pattern. We see it throughout history and even today. This is no rocket science, as they say. We can easily deduce this, and as history suggests, we have numerous examples of few men, and women too, who are the prime movers and shakers of opinion, thoughts and observations. Formalised opinions and the mutually beneficial nature of human requirements viz the individual, society and the state took the form of Law. This is obvious i suppose.

Ethics and ethical consideration is perhaps a fallout of human need to survive in a peaceful manner. Experience did taught humans to give value to peace. To acheive peace, i think, logically, the only means was to appeal to the growing emotional need of the human mind. This thinking or thought processes were a result of contemplation of the intellectual man and woman. Only the wise, the intelligent, the leaders, the shamans, could bring about the value of morals into an individual and later in a societal scale.

History does indicate this trend, and allow a fact of morality being preached down to the masses. I would rule out any kind of intuitive sense of morality or ethical behaviour.

Do you think that only the wise, the intelligent, the leaders, the shamans were able to have a clear view of immorality?

Example Who would be the most artisticaly capable of painting a descriptive picture of the grievous acts of immorality? The perpetrator or the victom, the master or the slave, the rapist or the person being raped.?

Is immorality bias? intelligent people and illiterate as well? Did leaders of high intellect selective breed their slaves?
Does the old testament teach that the slaves could be punished as long as they did not die before a couple of days after beating them? But it would be ok if they died after three days?

The torah seems to have cleaned up slavery in it's book, as it reads that a slave should be treated as yourself. but the slave was still the master's property and if the master gave the slave a wife, then slave and wife had children, the children belong to the master. It was not all that bad thow, If the slave was able to be set free [meaning that he was not from a foreign country], then if he would like to spend the rest of his life with his familly all he had to do was go to the temple and let all the priest know that he would be the masters slave for life and have his ear pierce to show this bond. It seems rather nice how moral that the inteligent people were back then does it not?

I do not see how we can have a paradigm shift within ethics without finding simple ways of showing the layman, and these Ideas need to be quick and to the point as the laymen is not interested in this subject and will lose focus very fast.

Morality or the lack of it, is a psycho-social reality. It is the observer who sees, thinks and formulates an idea. The Observer has to be intelligent, without which no insight or understanding can be acheived. So 'only' those who have the faculty to note and denote the underlying facts and subtleties of life may have a 'clear view' of moral values.



A good question. An act of harm, mental or physical is an act of natural attributes. The perpetrator and the victim of an act are the ones who are experiencing. If supposing, both the victim and the offender, co-incidently were poets of some kind of repute:sarcastic:, they may formulate a moral code [with rhyming words like in the Psalms :-)] by describing the trauma one has gone through in their future; but, i suppose it would be the wise and the intelligent, who having observed the act notice the harm, an 'immoral' act does to the individual and partly to the society.




The topic of slavery is a bit unnerving for me. I think after the end of aparthied in the fag end of the last century, and millennia, there cannot be any discussion on it, other than academic, even if the fading scriptures do not allude to its immorality.



The doubt in your expression is a valid one. Quite thoughtful. Unless, it is clear what kind of paradigm shift is envisaged, or desirable, i am afarid one cannot makes those vital bulleted 'commandments' for the laymen to follow.

true...... Education is a powerful tool to meet the goals of taming immorality. But i seriously and sincerely doubt its efficacy to eliminate immorality totality. Religion is an education. It has not helped, though, i should assert. But this assertion, i should add, may hide the fact, that religion has indeed helped man become more civilised. However, to meet the end of
Rape is bad, but i doubt whether rape can be confined to history, irrespective of the strides of education.

Edit: To further add, on the suggestions that modern day commandments may help the shift, it was because you had alluded to 'simple ways' of making the layman compliant. And i thought 'commandments' may help in a speedier way than the process of education. You did refer to 'force'. Commandments are a powerful moral force.

But anyway, i do not insist on 'commandments' as though a tablet will help solve the problem. What i meant was 'a code for all do's and dont's. And i suppose thats what ethics is all about for the laymen.

Now, these were mere arguments to support the points. I would really like to dwell on the paradigm shift the OP had raised. What is or was the Paradigm A in which we are, and what is that ideal Paradigm B which we need to shift into?. And how we can avoid violence while doing so?.

The priests can be my informants that can let me know of any type of paradigm shift that might be taking place so that I will know how to respond and use it towards my advantage to make even more wealth for myself.:detective:

1. Would it be morally acceptable If I cloned humans that would supply labor for all the rest of us? These clones would enjoy working for all us and work would be their greatest pleasure.

2 Would it be immoral If I am highly intellectual and I am able to come up with a scheme that would convince the intellectually challenged to be my work force?

1. Would it be morally acceptable If I cloned humans that would supply labor for all the rest of us? These clones would enjoy working for all us and work would be their greatest pleasure.

2 Would it be immoral If I am highly intellectual and I am able to come up with a scheme that would convince the intellectually challenged to be my work force?