Ethics is extremely valuable. What is ethics good for? Well I think, like you said, it can solve problems for us rather than causing problems (wars, murder, revenge). Only problem is corruption is the counterpart to ones ethics really. While you can end a war you will never end murder. If everyone followed an ethnic code and pursued their talents like you said we would live in perfect harmony.

Ethics is a perspective on individuals that is distinctly different than the anatomical/physiological perspective; and different than the socio-economic perspective. The ethical perspective regards an individual as an Intrinsic Value. Various ethical fallacies (errors) are known as racism, sexism, rankism, genderism, speciesism. To regard a person as a thing, or as a mere number (to be erased) are also ethical mistakes. A person is a precious treasure not to be defiled or violated. Abuse and cruelty are unethical.

Ethics is a perspective on individuals that is distinctly different than the anatomical/physiological perspective; and different than the socio-economic perspective. The ethical perspective regards an individual as an Intrinsic Value. Various ethical fallacies (errors) are known as racism, sexism, rankism, genderism, speciesism. To regard a person as a thing, or as a mere number (to be erased) are also ethical mistakes. A person is a precious treasure not to be defiled or violated. Abuse and cruelty are unethical.

If you want what ethics is good for in general couldn't you call it a standard of perfection?

Nice work Hum, I understand now what you mean now and yes Id agree that perfection is rather paradoxical. This is just what I had discussed in political theory a couple weeks ago.

If you want what ethics is good for in general couldn't you call it a standard of perfection?

But see, all of these make heavy presumptions about an ethical system. There are systems of ethics which are not so different from a physiological or socio-economic perspective.

The ethical perspective does not necessarily regard an individual as having an intrinsic value. Many of the "ethical fallacies" you list would not be considered ethical fallacies by a good number of ethical theories.

In short, what ethics is good for is going to depend upon your system of ethics. I would argue that your arguments only hold weight if we already agree to your ethical system. These are not arguments for what ethics is good for in general, but for the specific application of a presupposed ethical theory.

I am not stating either agreement or disagreement, but simply trying to clarify your question. Are you asking "What is ethics good for?" or "What is this particular system of ethics good for?" The arguments given thus far seem to indicate the latter.

As I reflected on the question "What is Ethics good for?" I came to some tentative conclusions, the main one being that it has the potential of making a better world for us all in which to live. I would argue for this conclusion as follows:

We would like to flourish, to feel we are using our talents, and putting them to effective use. We all can be "geniuses" at something. If a study of (or awareness of a system of) Ethics helps clarify moral value (i.e.,morality) so that as a result we have less value-confusion and come to know enough so that we look for more civilized ways to conduct ourselves rather than pursuing wars, murder, revenge, or societal harm such as dissing, blaming, and putting one another down.]

With regard to Individual Ethics, if each person said to himself:"What are my natural talents and how can I apply them more effectively?" what would be the result? We would find roles and careers in life that utilize our gifts and thus turn them into strengths. We would be willing to acquire new skills and knowledge to do our tasks more successfully. This would enhance our self-respect. Recall that the Oracle at Delphi told Socrates: KNOW THYSELF!

Ethics is a perspective on individuals that is distinctly different than the anatomical/physiological perspective; and different than the socio-economic perspective. The ethical perspective regards an individual as an Intrinsic Value. Various ethical fallacies (errors) are known as racism, sexism, rankism, genderism, speciesism. To regard a person as a thing, or as a mere number (to be erased) are also ethical mistakes. A person is a precious treasure not to be defiled or violated. Abuse and cruelty are unethical.

Do you agree with any of this?

I'd like to hear your opinions and/or analysis on any of these points. Do you agree with me that Ethics has a utility beyond a mere Grade-Point Average; beyond academic honors, outside of the classroom. It can make life more harmonious out in the world. Call this activism if you must. I call it practical realism. Yes, Ethics is very useful and valuable.

Greeting, Humchuck

Everything you say in this post is correct.

Of course when I ask the question in the o.p., the system of Ethics I have in mind is the one I have proposed. I argue, in the manual, ETHICS: A College Course, that it is superior to any other, and explain why.

Now I will give additional reasons. It is a better theory because

1) it contains variables in its axioms and may thus cover a wider range of applications than any of the rival theories when these variables are interpreted in terms of specific situations and events;
2) it provides a frame-of-reference to which more sub-models can cohere;
3) this paradigm is a synthesis of the prevailing conventional schools of thought that the academy teaches, with its stress on character, happiness; human dignity, universality, obligations, sanctions, conscience, varied phenomonological perspectives, etc., etc.
4) it has a logical thread of reasoning which binds the system together;
5) it has been already applied to a wide range of concrete issues and has provided some sensible, tentative answers;
6) it is compatible with the many and varied forms of The Golden Rule;
7) it incorporates principles such as the avoidance of causing suffering; natural rights based upon human nature; cultural evolution; avoidance of double standards, etc.etc.
8) it has a calculus of values which enables deductions of new principles;
9) it overlaps with and confirms with Phenomenology's conception of Intensionality in its definition of the term "Intrinsic Value";
10) It manages to define "good" in a manner that avoids committing The Naturalistic Fallacy propounded by G. E. Moore since it employs set theory and class membership;
11) it derives a series of 'ethical fallacies' and shows why they are errors in reasoning;
12) it is expandable and has what Hempel calls 'theoretical and empirical impport';
13) it can embrace multi-cultural schools of ethical thought such as shinto ethics, confuciianism, buddhistic ethics, etc., which the maijor academic theories cannot comforably do; and
14) it has a theory of justice, of authenticity, of ethical evolution, and is able to explain things that the other schools cannot;
15) it is able to define exactly what "Ethics" is as a study in its own right; it also defines with some precision "morality" and "hypocrisy" and shows how they vary inversely;
16) it applies to business and management and shares a common premise.with the prevailing principle that drives enterprises, namely to add value.

For alll these reasons, and more, you should drop the rest and embrace the one that has more features relevant to the field, for it complies with the definition of "a better theory". No other theory provides a definition of key tems such as 'better,' 'appreciation,' 'bad,' 'fair,' 'ought', 'approval' etc, yet this one does..

Click on the link below, and on the links in the Preface to get a fuller picture of the entire theory:

Self-righteousness has nothing to do with it. The scientific attitude and ethic is one of humility. All the findings in the Unified Theory of Ethics are tentative and subject to revision and modification. I will abandon that theory in a moment if I see that a better theory has come along.

When a contention is made, reasons ought to be given to support it, wouldn't you agree?

Some contend that the theory we here are constructing as an Open Source project is better than some of the alternatives. Why? For the 16 or 17 reasons given in an earlier post.

Based upon reason a reader will be able to decide which theory s/he wants to embrace. Each person may choolse for himself. He may decide he wants the one that has more features relevant to the field, and thus complies with the definition of "a better theory."

I'm sure this is rehashed, but after reading this thread, I wonder why a fixed system of secular ethics is required at all? If the vast majority of humanity already can agree on a few basic rules of interaction, why bother codifying the minutiae? Wouldn't it be easier (and eventually more effective) to let the market of human interaction decide which actions are appropriate or inappropriate for a given scenario?

Greeetings, apehead

Thank you for your input. It shows you have been seriously thinking about the topic of tgpic of this thread.

How has it worked for you so far? I mean the War on Iraq, the action on the Climate Change disasters, the ecologicical damage in The Gulf of Texaco becaue a private corporation, pursuing free-market private enterprise, has done its thing. I'm speaking of British Petroleum.

In Hatii as well as in Somalia they have what all libertarians dream of: total anarchy - but they have what you described in your post: they do have some social principles of interaction, some civilizing principles.

Going by your standards why wouldn't we have had The Inquisition? After all, Augustine, who started the torture techniques later used in a big way, was a "Saint." --No moral confusion there, right?

Do you really, in your heart, believe that religion is doing such a supremely-great job in teaching ethics? As a result of all their years of work have we abated corruption? Reconstructo and HexHammer don't think so. But maybe you see it clearer and have other ideas.

Perhaps a secular discipline, a focused study, a "scientia," can do a better job.