How to think and talk about Ethics

Forums: Philosophy, Ethics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

If you want to live you need to breathe, you need eventually to eat. We can get universal agreement on that. I start with Life. I think we can agree life has value. If you agree 'life is valuable' then therefore murder is bad. So is harming. So is abusing. So is violating conscious human life in any way. And starvation is bad. So let's work to keep human suffering to a minimum: One good and immediate way to do this is by feeding the hungry.

Odds are that not to far from you is someone who is unemployed and who is close to being down to his last cent, centavo, peso, sixpence, shekel, etc. We are morally obliged to take care of the less fortunate.

And if life is good to have (and every life is unique) then why not MAXIMIZE WELL-BEING. What people yearn for today is not what they say they yearn for if you should casually ask them. They will say that they want money; or things that money buys; or to be able to succeed due to some major achievement. What they really want is something else again: They want some recognition, some leisure, loving relationships, the time to pursue their projects; they want to be appreciated by their family, and perhaps to make a difference, a contribution -- in other words, they want a high quality of life.

"Well-being" is defined as "social health and mental health." It is quality of life. These two moral principles I mentioned - MINIMIZING SUFFERING (EXTREME POVERTY) and MAXIMIZING WELL-BEING - should be our top priorities. Each feeds into the other, supports it and accelerates it. The former, though ought to take priority over the latter. It is something we can take action on immediately, and it is urgent.

To sum up, once a person appreciates life, and how fortunate s/he is to be alive, and wants to share his/her good fortune ...this is the definition of "moral health" It arises in three dimensions, from best to least:

Intrinsic) I decide to be happy, and I want to share my happy feelings; I enjoy it if I see you smile, and if I was in any way the cause of it.

(Extrinsic) I can be of service and can do kind actions. I can volunteer my help …my time and my money. I’ll be a volunteer.

(Systemic) I carefully and deliberately work out a code of conduct for myself because I want a good character; it involves honesty, and moral courage. It entails thinking globally and acting locally.

How do you feel about this? I'd love to know. Can we reach a consensus among the members of this Forum, and the guests? Let me hear from you.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,089 • Replies: 6

No top replies

@deepthot,

*this reply is in my words/opinion*

deepthot wrote:

... I think we can agree life has value.

life- in and of its self- does not have value.... what a person’s significance to others, does. Applying a subjective connotation to something doesn’t make it factual, or I think more importantly pertinent.
The “value” that people have is based on what they know, accomplish, or are gifted with (to name but a few), but any kind of default intrinsic “value” for just the existence of life is nonexistent. Lets grant your submission for a moment, what is that value (is everyone equally the same)? Is it any less or more compared on in individual case by case bases? Does a physically exceptional individual or the next Einstein of our time hold more value then someone, for example, who is a born and carries on their life in a complete vegetative state? You apply this term “value” to life, so you may attempt to strengthen your later points, which I’m not even going to go into their flawed circular logic…

My point is- life alone doesn’t hold value. What people base life’s value on is their rapport, moral standings, or simply a case by case basis. All subjective, all personal (although sometimes a shared commonality with others), but ultimately insubstantial.

1 Reply

@Telamon,

...of course value exists although some of its vectors have relative referents, but not its structure or do you think life and its organization are a chaotic collection of actions without priority's ???

Opinion ? First even opinions have causes they don't come about without constrains like what is important for that Bio system maintenance/survival in this world and the different possible set of strategy's it may devise to achieve goals, from primary order as instinct, to secondary order basic reasoning on the individual level, and up to social phenomena on a tertiary order which imply s cooperation when there is a common gain...it all coordinates with other elements like intelligence, knowledge which is memory, or the depth of field for action with max gain, plus the specificity of culture, a evolved strategy of a certain group along history built and limited by geography, weather, resources, and multiple other factors...I could keep writing the entire day...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...of course value exists although some of its vectors have relative referents,...

That was the point of my original response, that although life has “value” it is directly inherent to the “relative referents of its vectors”. A case by case basis, perceived by an individual, if it exist at all.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

..., but not its structure or do you think life and its organization are a chaotic collection of actions without priority's ???

Your oversimplifying too much to ascertain the specificity of your argument… (Although I think your just getting either sidetracked or possible your just diverting) Life CAN BE (and sometimes for lack of a better understanding) a random collection of actions without priority’s, at least in the sense of priorities you speak of later in your original post. You stated that

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...life has value...

Are we talking about life’s value or the value of its actions (organized or otherwise). The point I’m trying to make is, that they are not the same thing.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

We are morally obliged to take care of the less fortunate.

Why? because you say so? There are plenty of (if not most) life forms and/or people out there that I consider to have value, but to say that it’s equal across the board or automatic, I find that to be erroneous.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Opinion ? First even opinions have causes they don't come about without constrains.

No ****, wasn’t saying otherwise…

And the rest of the post is a continuous tirade. One, that anyone with a basic understanding of social structure can spew and I find it to be pointless to comment on except for with the following…duh.

1 Reply

@Telamon,

Quote:

That was the point of my original response, that although life has “value” it is directly inherent to the “relative referents of its vectors”. A case by case basis, perceived by an individual, if it exist at all.

No its not a case by case pal...there are progressive layering and clustering of referential s, reason why you form cultural groups that share common goals...the way you speak of it you make it sound like anarchy...idiot !

Quote:

Why? because you say so? There are plenty of (if not most) life forms and/or people out there that I consider to have value, but to say that it’s equal across the board or automatic, I find that to be erroneous.

...lol. you entirely misperceived the point as expected...the structure is the same because value always is related to a referential a culture a group a family, and the pattern repeats no matter the size of the set you look at...so yes I guess one can say that indeed there is an underlying structure on how value unfolds or gravitates according to organized referents, these levels of language that go layer by layer, from large cultural backgrounds to smaller sets of group norms, to genetics and inter species competition, with different and often opposing conflicting goals, and on, up to chemistry and physics at large also organized in referents of competing patterns that superimpose on each other... in fact I am just thinking on how matter and dark matter competed in the beginning of the Big Bang...everything works exactly in the same way and that's hardly the perception most people have about it as most don't see it as a part of the formula on which our Universes is organized, so don't duh me because you are as far as hell of understanding whatever for that matter...in here what is not a tirade is that you, a bit like a train out of control, write to much and say to little...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

No its not a case by case pal...there are progressive layering and clustering of referential s, reason why you form cultural groups that share common goals...the way you speak of it you make it sound like anarchy...idiot !

And it looks like you fail to see the context of “value” applied in the condition presented by the original post and/or the scrutiny of my retort in its relevance. Additionally your applying the breakdown out of context in peripheral circumstances outside of its intent of explanation.

So yes, duh…

And for Rant #2-
see above, and I would suggest a re-examination of all prior post.

PS-
This is why I shouldn’t come here when I can’t sleep.
I didn’t realize till after my previous post, that beforehand was a post/reply from two different individuals. Until I get the chance to correct it, please siphon or ignore my previous post. My apologies.

1 Reply

@Telamon,

...no problem.

0 Replies

How to think and talk about Ethics

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know