ETHICS ALPHABETICALLY slight up date 18

ETHICS ALPHABETICALLY slight up date 18
Ethical Values and other terms relating to moral-social-political belief. [Co-option and Economics added]
Only those terms noted as Values are elementary values, or end values.
The definitions and explanations are self-evidently those of a person who at least pretends to be altruistic
It may be assumed that many moral words that have evolved are not very specific, and like Compromise denote intermediate or indecisive ideas.

Al................................An

................Au...................

A*

Altruism End-value.
Altruism should be distinguished from self-sacrifice, which is a virtue in specific circumstances. Concern for the well-being of all people - as a universal value - includes one's self as a component. It may be defined by the values of Freedom and Responsibility - the freedom or liberty to what is socially responsible. "Do unto others ...." Opposed to Egoism.

Anarchism End-value
Defined by Egotistic Freedom. A society in which people, in the common phrase, "Live and let live [or die]." There is no essential responsibility or duty to others or to any over-arching authority. Every person or group will have its internal culture or ethic but the over-arching ethic is one of autonomy. Naturally this condition is fragile, being opposed to Responsibility.

Anti-
A prefix indicating opposition to something. Anti-smoking. Anti-fascist. Anti-semitic. A moral person is bound to be anti. to some things. The question is whether he has a logical ethical reason for his belief. Other people may disagree, that is the basis for ethical progress rather than bigotry. Current convention may deplore opposition to particular categories of things, but that either has a logical basis or it is bigoted.

Antonyms
Terms opposing each other in meaning. The most naive use of antonyms in ethics is to suppose Good and Evil with perhaps a grey area between is all that exists. Religion likes to portray a universe divided in that way. If there were indeed forces or 'spirits' that either destroy or create and harmonise, there is some basis to this. But the question remains about what is destroyed and how anything is harmonised. At that level it is a matter of philosophical opinion as to what is 'good' or 'evil'. We may therefore drop easily into the idea of a God creator who decides the question for us. We may indeed have to submit. But if virtue and vice are not arbitrary whims of god, then these concepts must have a rational basis even for him, and our making whimsical decisions for ourselves as what we like and dislike, is simply another level of arbitrary decision. The first task may in fact be to rationalise the alternatives, in determining how they all relate together in sympathy and antagonism. This implies at least a two dimensional framework, which is a triangle at the simplest. Antonyms placed across this from side to angle in a network. Some values albeit of different qualities, yet synchronised with other values on the same dimension - consonant with each other - freedom and equality for instance in that the more there is of one the more there must be of the other.
This present exercise is predicated on the deduction that elementary values stand at the sides of the triangle, and converge to create end-values at the angles, such that end-values are opposed to the simple values. Indeed the opposite of an end-value cannot be another end-value. While all of these together denote forms of society which may in entirety be set against an anti-value of chaos. Society exists at many levels, and at simplest is composed of individuals [not forgetting the rest of creation] but at a higher level has societies themselves as the 'individuals' or nations and states within a global society.

Apathy
This must be a trait as much as anything else. It must however be exaggerated by personal philosophy, which itself would have been a product of this apathy. Something like it will affect a state or society, through those who inhabit, govern, and create its ethic.
In essence it must be an attitude towards the outer world, and to other people or societies.
It is obviously not a trait or value consonant with altruism. An authoritarian state might well thrive on this trait within its common population, and in anarchist society denote the general attitude of one person, family, group, to others.
Pragmatically, any society that ever exists, must cope with this in at least a minority, or make use of it.

Atheist
An atheist is a person who does not believe in the 'god' of present or traditional conventions in his society, and is labelled thus by convention.
The term should be redundant. Everyone has their god by the fact that they and other sentient and sapient life exists. The source or basis for sapient life is our god. To call a person an atheist because his god is unconventional is perverse.
To ossify the idea of 'God' in a current form that suits one or more religions, or their 'churches', is perverse.

Autarky Self Sufficient states economically or militarily etc etc

Authoritarianism End-value
Complete subjection to authority. Duty and Egotism. The reverse face of this is Servility. A servile person is a tyrant in subjection. Sycophancy is the trait of such a society. Its god is a tyrant and not a father figure.

B*

Beneficent
Altruist society that is not beneficent, as a whole and individually is inconceivable. It denotes the act of doing good deeds. If there were a beneficent god, beyond merely sustaining creation, it would logically be abundantly clear. But the nature of benefit is a matter of opinion. Anarchistic society having the least of this quality. Authoritarian society might well, and almost certainly would portray itself as beneficent to its citizens. But it would be so on a mechanical basis, of keeping people fit to work and serve the state or 'god'.

Bigotry Value.
Bigotry essentially defines the authoritarian society. Opposed to the tolerance of altruistic and anarchistic society. Instead of employing rational thought to elucidate, it is used to justify an existing belief. It is a philosophical position with the seeds of its own destruction, as knowledge expands and cannot be hidden. What then remains may be unassailable pragmatism, but so employed as to control society for the purposes of its ruling clique and indeed its 'god'. A world that may soon be entirely predictable, where people sell their souls to the highest bidders in a computer controlled world.

C*

Capitalism
Some people see this as virtually a value rather than simply as an economic 'system'. In reality it is so vague as to signify almost anything in ethical terms. If it were a mere statement that capital needs to be employed usefully it would barely be worth mentioning. It needs to be taken to the limits.
Where signifying private owners making the maximum profit, with no social controls, it would clearly be a dog eat dog economy with fewer and fewer capitalists in control. Even if Mafia tactics were outlawed the result ould well be a capitalist Tyranny. Any regard paid to the environment and social needs would be entirely fortuitous, although a modicum of wit must require basic sustainability. Indeed an existing tyranny may base itself on capitalism, by making use of the cupidity of individuals under its control.
if social controls were in place on an egalitarian model, but nothing more, then a lid would be placed on wealth in terms of real estate or commercial ownership. No doubt also with rules against monopolies. The result might well be what some would term a property owning democracy. But this would be Anarchism if the purpose were simply to maintain personal autonomy with no concern for others, who may not succeed and become pauperised.
The third alternative is for the economy to be seen as serving society as a whole, and everyone, and not for personal monetary and other profit by the capitalist. In farming, for instance, the provision of food and maintenance of nature in entirety or holistically, as the prime objective, while providing a living to the farmer.
Money buys absolutely nothing. It is goods, and expertise, that are exchanged.

Carbon - CO2
Any pragmatic philosophy must be based on values that relate to facts that can be verified and are relevant. Not on misleading facts and measurements.
The environment is largely about life that exists on land and in the sea without which we would not survive and which should be respected in its own right, where it is not quite inimitable to human life and life generally.
We may be concerned about the effect of many poisonous industrial emissions on ourselves, but for CO2 it is not about a direct effect on our health as individuals. Therefore it is peculiar that the CO2 debate employs data measured per capita of the national and global population. If I were the only person living in the whole of Europe, there would be no possible CO2 danger from my activities. It would all be naturally recycled.
But it is a plain fact, on the basis of fairly recent figures, that Britain has 15 to 20 times the CO2 pollution per square mile or hectare, of pollution for New Zealand. In fact we have the worst figures for almost any fair sized country on the world.
The reason for this wild excess is not mere industrialisation, but the enormous population we have in this country - and growing. No possible environmental philosophy can ignore excessive population and continued growth.

Chaos Antivalue
That condition of the world, or our part of it, as an [anti] end-value, or an end-value for the depraved or simply criminal. No social values of cohesion remain.
Although a war may be conducted as an extension of politics, and for the purpose of 'choosing' between one end-value and another.
There is, of course, no compromise between absolute end-values [if they exist] there can only be an intermediate situation in which opposing forces gather strength for a final resolution. If Charles I considered himself an absolute monarch, protected by his own laws, then those opposed to absolutism had no choice - although in fact they appear to have had some constitutional resort.

Chaos - and the Altruist
Chaos is a condition of society. An altruist is a member of a society that may be altruist or otherwise. The altruist may seek to change global society but his misguided actions may simply transfer disruption of society elsewhere to what was a stable local society. The altruist society or nation in a world that is chaotic, cannot behave as though the world is subject to altruist law or rights.

Charity Value
As so often the English language is bedevilled by a multiplicity of meanings. Such as the giving of aid to the needy, and also the institutions that carry this out. Also a generalised benevolence. Also forbearance and tolerance. And a convoluted form of charity derived from belief in God and being charitable to others as objects of his love. To an altruist [end-value] all of these have some merit, but as an altruist he will be charitable as of his nature. Charity in obedience to the Pope or God smacks of the virtue of Mother Teresa as was once reputed.

Charity - the institution
Charities exist in profusion, with specific fund-raising and beneficent causes. What is specific about them overall, is that they are not holistic. Even environmental charities are likely to be holistic in a restricted way. Only society and government can be reliably holistic. A charity that fights disease will save every life it can, and the more that is the more virtue. The more persecuted people that can migrate to safety the better. But every life then requires, housing, food, education .... and not least a social and natural world that is respected. Charities must act for societies and not pretend they are entirely supranational.

Choice and Freewill
The ability to choose a course of action based on ethical values is a critical question, but they are not values in themselves. If everything in the universe were known, probably the future would be predictable. The answer may rest on whether a genuine random mental throw of the dice is possible. A person who is an altruist will choose altruist action. A sapient or rational person will evaluate choices, within his given knowledge. He may therefore be induced by reason, or lack of it, to cease to be altruist. But this would be based on existing influences. Uncertainty for the future would depend on a stalemate being randomly resolved - even a mere random choice to turn left rather than right towards a destination alters the future.

Choice
Choice for a person is little more than what he may do for a few more years of his life. Altruistically or otherwise. But for a society the very long term is in question, or should be, but even that involves an altruistic outlook at some level.
A difficulty arises with pragmatic limitations for human beings and for the earth. And we may make a choice for the future that determines the way ahead for our children and their children, so that they have no choice. Altruistically and pragmatically, if we want social and economic choice to continue indefinitely then we must ensure there is space today for all possibilities of life, in particular in relation to the natural world. Or in our own social structure of towns, and villages, and countryside. An overcrowded world minimises choice.
An architect and engineer may now be capable of constructing vast habitat buildings for thousands of people, but if we allow this to happen on any scale, we may well condemn the future to adapting to this lifestyle. And nature may be reduced to a domesticated species scale.

Collectivism see Individualism
Opposed generally to Individualism. Horizontal or egalitarian, and vertical or hierarchical.
Vertical is as here, Authoritarianism. Horizontal is as here, either Altruistic or Anarchistic.

Co-option
A minor matter with wide implications for Society.
Cooption to a council or other body is undertaken by sitting members to make up numbers to whatever regulations require. It may be employed by any form of society, the difference being in the purpose served by the particular committee or council.
But for a society that is democratic, involving a public electorate, there is a question as to what extent the system is necessary or at all desirable. If an elected council finds itself short of a quorum and those willing to serve are no more than adequate to fill the places, then they may well be co-opted immediately, if they are minimally capable.
However the question for Democracy, where society chooses to be democratic, is whether taking part in it is an option or a responsibility. It would appear to be absurd to choose Democracy and then do nothing to support it. Although Anarchism may be considered marginally a democracy, based on whimsical choice.
Genuine Altruist democracy is based on responsibility, and so participation within means and capability, is essential. Preferably by choice, but Pragmatism is a value applicable to Altruism, although minimally so to Anarchism. In the 'real world' the public must be expected to participate. At the very least that signifies voting for members of a Council where the number of applicants is above quorum level. An electoral college of a large proportion of the population is a possibility, although with its dangers.
It is fairly useless and counter-productive to have members of a council who positively do not want to serve, but a list of those who are capable of doing so may be desirable, so that they can be called on when necessary - appealing to their sense of citizenship. A rota may even be devised, which was indeed not uncommon in England in the past, for parish duties such as churchwarden.
Co-option and Election must have different effects on the psyche of councillors and the council itself.
Where elected by the public at large, councillors will feel an obligation to the public, and may respect them, or feign this respect at worst. At least it directs their attention outwards to society.
Where the rule or habit is a cycle of cooption, those who serve will be obliged to each other, and the council itself may become an institution of patronage, to which the public is obliged. At worst the council may become some sort of elective-dictatorship, except that it is not even elected more than spasmodically every few years. Indeed, co-option is a tool of authoritarianism.

Crime
Crime is a violation of the law. In the authoritarian state or society the law - naturally god's law - is everything. Anarchistic society has no law above the autonomous family or group other than for security. Over-arching morality rather than law is what controls altruist society. Every society has a mix of law, morality, convention, in practical terms - there is no perfection conceivable.
But crime for society as a whole, or in all forms, is whatever is productive of Chaos. Essentially, acts that defer to no morality or law, and states of absolute war and terrorism.

Cruelty Anti-value
As in the UN Rights that prohibits cruel treatment and torture, it is such as to degrade a person, as opposed to kindness or respect for people. As a universal value it is consonant with Chaos, the wholesale destruction of society. It may also be a tool of tyranny where a person is outlawed or cast out from that particular society. Kindness or respect must exist in any stable society according to the nature of that society. In anarchist society people respect each other only as independent individuals, whereas in a servile authoritarian society people are functionaries. [A stylite might be greatly revered].

Culture
The arts, literature, mythology, customs, folklore of a society and particularly a nation. Not inclusive of the cosmology or sciences, and not inclusive of those ethical values and moral codes that evaluate the usage of all that is contained in our cosmology and cultures. Religions have their innocuous customs, and mythologies, which should not be confused or conflated with ethics.
It is a term which is misused even tendentiously. We refer to different cultures, as if that is good in providing diversity, but it is not merely mistaken it is thoroughly dangerous for this to include different ethics. There may and should be tolerance for ethical opinion, but only be within an innocuous range. Migration of an ethic to a country that is abrasive, and worse, is foolish. It were preferable for every country to be fairly homogeneous culturally, but it is essential ethically. The mixing of cultures can bring misunderstanding and antipathy that overflows into ethical conflict.

Culture - European English
Commonly and almost irrevocably mixed up with ethics-politics. English culture descends from Saxon roots in the 4C onwards. It also derives in a more philosophical-political way from ancient Athens. Not least there is the Anglicised, Christian-Judaic culture of the bible. The idea that there is a single Christianity is a common vanity today, in order to minimise conflict.

D*

Debate - Free-debate, as opposed to Free-speech.
The First Rule of Democracy is the duty of all people to discuss all things, including what may or may not be said outside rational debate. To discuss the propriety of using a vulgarity is not the same as using that vulgarity in normal discourse and publications.

Definitions - of words see Meaning

Democracy
People power as in its Greek origin. But if it is confined to this simple definition it is merely a social state opposed to authoritarianism and tyranny. In that case it can be Altruist or Anarchist in form. And, it may be suspected, a large faction in the population prefer this ambiguity, so that they may pursue their ambitions as widely as possible.

Diversity Value
Diversity is of course a statement of evident variety in the world, either between individuals or societies. But it must also be employed as a value that with others defines social end-values. With its opposite, it reduces society either to universal unity, or to two sorts of variety. Cultural diversity under a unifying ethic and moral diversity under a dissociating ethic. Chaos on the other hand has unrestrained diversity of all kinds.

E*

Economics` see Capitalism
It should be obvious that the economy and system employed is a product of Society. It exists for the benefit of Society, on an egalitarian or non-egalitarian basis as may be. It employs people in Society. And is paid for by Society in terms of money, or more realistically in terms of mental and physical labour. But it also a product of the Earth and the material environment we inhabit, which is not a limitless resource, other than in renewables that will last as long as our part of the universe.


Education
The way education is dealt with is seminal - what else. It is not a value, but every person that ever lived for any period had to be educated by nature and nurture. In advanced civilization the extent, nature, and outcome or purpose of education denotes the form of society involved.
Authoritarian society will inculcate a world view that undermines debate, other than within that world view.
Anarchist society will allow all world views, either for component families, or groups. As long as those views do not inflict themselves on society as a whole.
Altruist society must be holistic. There will be debate about values in general, and how they are to be employed. But a positive view as to what is desirable for everyone in society, must exist as a basis for education, and that debate be directed at improving future education and society.
As per the egalitarian value. Anarchist society must be so between its groups................

Egoism Value
This simple value is set against that set of values which is altruism. The ego centred on the 'state' on one hand, and the ego as centred on the individual person or families on the other hand. The ego of the altruist is, as it were, extrovert rather than introvert.

Empathy
Apart from basic sensation, out of which empathy no doubt flows, this must be the most remarkable feature of humanity and higher animals, and perhaps that of all animals in some embryonic degree. If it only existed in humans we might be excused for imagining it implanted by an olympian god. In the absence of miracles that require no explanation, it must be assumed to be a basic function of existence. Mere reference to increasing complexity in the human brain and mind is an explanation that appears to signify nothing of value, beyond the fact of complexity. It may be assumed that we are part of an interlinked natural world, fundamentally so in terms of values, and this relationship is the fount of empathy.

Empathy and Institutions
Empathy is an attribute we have relative to other human beings and other forms of life. An institution, like a local authority, the government, and commercial concerns, are not human or living. We may have empathy for those who staff institutions, but empathy for the corporate body is absurd.

Empathy and MPs or Councillors
As a logical extension of the above. It could be said that Councillors and others as members of corporate bodies are simply functionaries as such. How this affects the law is an important question. Criticism of functionaries, is criticism of an impersonal office, and not of the private individual. The two areas would need to be well defined and separated.

Empathy
As may have been said elsewhere. Empathy is consonant with altruism. It is not consonant with extreme authoritarianism. While anarchism is bound to be deficient in this quality.

Equality Value.
This is a basic value consonant with freedom.
Authoritarian society is essentially a ruling clique, over those ruled who may or may not be equally servile.
A 'free' body of people or body of societies, has no subservience. Equality is intrinsic but qualified.
Everyone is not the same, physically, culturally, or mentally.
But to anarchist society all morality, not destructive of the fabric of society, is equal.
Altruism has mutual responsibility, but values variety and tolerates unavoidable natural defects.
It may well be a good thing if a profession were to have equal numbers of men and women, and others according to percentage in the population. But that is an ideal at best, and one that may even be mistaken. The real equality is in men and women having equal opportunity in accordance with their suitability.
There are more than two ways of looking at most ethical choices. Gender equality signifies something so wide today that it smacks of anarchism. Inequality would be consonant with authoritarian - tyrannous - society. Altruism will tolerate ............................................................................
................

Ethic
Every society, country, or state, has an ethic. Either adopted by it, whether rational or irrational, or existing by default. If no particular ethic is recognised, by government or people, and yet law and order is maintained, then almost certainly some sort of anarchist ethic exists. Law must be based on some philosophy, if only to stop outright chaos and conflict, or the rule the mob. And the rule of the mob is at worst a form of tyranny. Religion is not an ethic, although religions contain ethics.

Ethics
In general usage ethics applies to individuals and relationships. Politics is what societies or states do. Realistically the whole is about people in society, and in their relationship to society, whether that is two people, a village, a social group, a country or whatever. It is also relations between societies themselves and between countries or states.

Ethical Preconceptions
The how of what is determined to be 'right or wrong' is fundamental.
Those who tend to Anarchism will tend to see ethics as what individuals believe and do only with respect to each other.
Those who tend to Authoritarianism will tend to see ethics as a matter of absolutes and divine will.
Those who tend to Altruism will tend to see ethics as a product of society and of logical values which define the divine.
Those who create Chaos see nothing beyond their own stomachs and egos.
Which is not to say that the divine or commonly held idea of god exists in reality.

Ethical Preconceptions
Those who tend to Anarchism will tend only to respect each other as autonomous individuals
Those who tend to Authoritarianism will tend to see people and society as supplicants to the law
Those who tend to Altruism will tend to see society as a for mutual benefit

Ethical Preconceptions
Those who tend to Anarchism will see the whole world as one society
Those who tend to Authoritarianism will see the whole world one state
Those who tend to Altruism will see the whole world as a social layer cake

Ethical Preconceptions
Those who see ethics as what individuals do only to each other in a mutual benefit society by the will of god will be very confused

Evil
Some religious or spiritual people believe evil exists as some sort of entity. But they can only believe this by having a view of what constitutes evil acts or attitudes. Malignant and directly harmful is what may usually be signified. If a spirit pervades the universe bent on outright destruction and Chaos, then it would be entirely anti-society. Within society, any vice or evil must be based on an existing belief about society and human relations. Either , anarchist - altruist, as may be.

F*

Faith Value. Except when used to mean bigoted religion.
Faith can be used as Trust that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Faith as Hope that virtue will eventually triumph.
Faith as a Conviction that something unproved or un-provable is true.

Fatalism

Firearms - see Self-defence

Freedom Value.
As a basic value it is absurd to employ this term in isolation. We are either free from, or free to do. But it is dangerous to leap directly into listing activities that are permitted and those not. All activity has to have a basis in ethical values. If we do not define our end-values then we are either being tendentious, or foolish. Obeying a mythical god is some form of end-value, the operative word is not god but obedience, which means to established authority.

G*

Genetics
Pandora's Box may yet be fully opened. Genetics provides us with vast opportunity for good in eliminating hereditary diseases, for instance. But we are dealing with ourselves, and we are not all saints, if anyone is. Pragmatically it must be expected that the temptation to abuse will be impossible to overcome. As with drugs and sport, there may be laws that prohibit abuse, and yet it is understood there is illegal drugs use. We have a world with numerous nations in chaotic variety, where anything may be done somewhere. If in this and other forms of technology, the Box is opened, in order to survive a police state may be the only answer.
We have to limit technology to our capacity to understand what is released, and our capacity to resist its opportunities. There are other ways to deal with genetic disease, that may not be palatable but better for us in our stupidity.

God
As we define God so we believe in 'him' or it. Logically everyone has his god, but not necessarily defined as a superman. Some may indeed believe in a universal consciousness or source, but not separate from the material world - a relationship as of one value to another must be possible. Naturally religious people might use the term divine. Science may be accused of materialistic reductionism, which has achieved great results, but this need not supplant holistic thought and an immanent god.
Everyone has their god by the fact that they and other sentient and sapient life exists. The source or basis for sapient life is our god. To call a person an atheist because his god is unconventional is perverse.

Goods see Property

H*

Horizontal and Vertical Society
This used, less a diagrammatic representation of societal forms as a whole, than a way of expressing how people are arranged in two forms of society. Horizontal as all people equal in status. Vertical people in class or level of authority.

I*

Inclusiveness - Exclusiveness
This is an extraordinary term. It is obvious that in altruist society anything that is morally desirable or tolerable may be allowed in where it is suited to be. To include all random things in a random way would barely even be anarchist.

Idealism
To have an ideal is intrinsic to altruism. But irrational or un-pragmatic idealism is a common folly that undermines society. An ideal is essentially beyond what is practical, and to pretend that it represents a virtue that must be imposed on society is absurd. We should all 'love' each other, but it is certain we will not, and the practical ideal is to allow space for people away from those they do not 'love'. It may appear like an ideal for all people to be equal, but that must be according to people's differences and capabilities. And equality should not be confused with a right everywhere for everyone at any time.
It may well be a good thing if a profession were to have equal numbers of men and women, and others according to percentage in the population. But that is an ideal at best, and one that may even be mistaken, The real equality is in men and women having equal opportunity in accordance with their suitability.

Individualism see Collectivism
This is generally opposed to Collectivism. There is something false about this. There is no such thing as pure individualism, other than of a hermit or castaway. There can be no society that is not a mixture of the two. And no quantity of people, who are not entirely separated, can be in anything but in a social group.
The error is partly the opposition of what must in fact be one sort of society with another sort of society. A society and end-values are the same thing, and directly opposed to that is a non-society which is to say a simple value. If individualism is in fact Anarchism, then the direct antonym is social responsibility and duty, which is ambivalent, and with other values represents either altruistic society or authoritarian society. They are both together perhaps Collectivism, but that provides a false impression of end-values.
It may be supposed that extreme anarchism would be a quantity of hermits. This has some merit, in that the extreme of any end-value society is an absurdity, except altruist society.

Islam
It may be doubted that Islam has anything to add to European ethical thought not encompassed by its meaning: 'submission to the will of God', as opposed to belief in values that define god. There is naturally much in the culture of Islamic countries that is admirable, but that is not adequate reason for Europe to modify its culture. Of great benefit to European thought was the preservation of Greek texts and their transmission back into Europe in the medieval period.

'ism
This suffix is used as in racism, to denote a belief that convention considers immoral. Its use tends to arise out of a simple ethical dichotomy. Racism in particular is equated with a belief in the superiority of certain races or cultures, or the inferiority of certain races. Opposed to that the idea of a universal race. It tends not to take account of the third option of diversity within humanity

J*

K*

Kindness see Cruel

L*

Law - Natural Laws of Existence
It would be absurd to postulate a 'God' with the power to create the laws of his own existence. Therefore either 'he' is subject to law that is defined only by irreducible logic, or 'he' is indeed that law itself. In neither case does a 'superman' figure of religious philosophy suggest itself. What does suggest itself is that all the qualities that are exhibited by nature that of humanity, must have its germ or potential in that or those fundamental laws. Not merely mechanical properties, but those of the conscious mind and sentiment including empathy. The assumption being of a universe with definable values that necessarily relate holistically.
A Magistrate in his court may put the law above all else. If so, then it is a statement of logic - or illogic - which proves the point that logic is pre-eminent. The law must be logical, with it being paramount as a product of logic. This does not mean that logic existed in its own right prior to law and everything else, but that things or values exist in relation to that value.

Lotteries The Lottery
Not being a value of any kind, but based on values, how it relates to society varies according to the way it is managed. In an imperfect world and societies, there are almost bound to be lotteries, or similar competitions. Even in an imperfect altruist society there are many people who do not believe in them, or in betting, gaming and the like. But that the lottery should be manipulated so as to worsen the odds drastically, and produce fewer and massive payouts, must be anathema to many. It has the advantage to the organiser of attracting more income, and vaunt this alos as producing more profit for charities.
Altruist society would keep prizes to a modest level, with as much as possible to charities, and it would preferably be run on a non-profit making basis.
Anarchist society, or moral-relatavist society, would maximise the amount spread in prizes.
Whereas it would be consonant for the authoritarian state to run the business itself, and maximise profit to bolster taxes, with prizes merely as a sop.

Love
Probably the most abused word in the language, ethically.
Love may usually be opposed to Hate.
As applied to art and literature these terms appear excessive and not applicable to representations of the actual subjects that may be loved or hated. Admire and deprecate may be more suitable antonyms for what is portrayed and the artistry involved.

Love see Traits
As is well known the English word love, had better be several words to encompass the range of meanings, as in Classical Greek. Or perhaps suitable words exist and are not used as they should be.
Where it is employed to indicate a passion it is not an ethical value.
It may be used in a similar way to Agape, which is a value. But even there it may be nearer to self-sacrifice, which is a universal value for particular circumstances.

M*

Manners - Politeness

Marriage
Marriage is a social institution based on values. In this country today there is a wide range of accepted relationships, from casual and transient, to informal long term partnership, formal religious marriage, and formal secular marriage. Where children enter the 'contract' there are further complications and responsibilities.
It is obvious that a fixed form of formal marriage would be consonant with authoritarian society, although particular societies, less than absolutist, may have little regard for this.
In anarchistic or morally relativist society, almost anything would go, as between sub-groups within that society. Live and let live or die.
For altruist society the problem is acute, in deciding rationally, what is for the best benefit holistically, or for society and individuals. In large part it is a problem from inherited natural desires, and where these do not impact society long term, there may perhaps be great latitude. It is where children enter the equation that long term considerations beyond the partners involved, must be paramount. There are inherited natural needs in children, and simply knowing ones antecedents is of importance. There must be doubt that anything other than traditional marriage with restricted opportunity for divorce could normally suit the growing family. Altruist society is egalitarian with respect to those forms of life that have equality in merit.

Master see Servitude, slave, servant etc

Meaning - of words
The OED provides meanings or definitions of words as they arise in Science and Technology and in common usage. A term like 'bug' has meanings never imagined by our forefathers. While the word 'gay' is entirely corrupted, so that its old usage so often found in novels, can barely be used today. A different word for 'gay' is needed, but is unlikely.
The same OED method is no doubt employed for ethical terms, with input from philosophers, sociologists and the like. There is a problem with this, in that a word may be defined in a convenient but mechanical way, or common way, that does more to fetter it than elucidate - especially as to its connections with other ethical terms or values, in a holistic way.
An alternative is to use words in the general spirit of their common meaning, or meanings, while allowing their 'real' meanings to be left slightly indeterminate. Such that an end-value is what it needs to be in opposition to other simple values or end-values. It is only the whole set of terms in a category that has useful significance individually. This takes for granted that values are not in simple pairs of antonyms, and that simple values 'define' end-values, not in the OED way but in the tendency of their meaning.
If 'Freedom' is a simple value, and opposed to slavery, as the extreme, then it is opposed to tyranny and authoritarianism as social states. But the social states which embrace freedom in some degree or form, define the end-values that slavery is set against - tangentially.

Migration
Obviously not a value, but an activity that has to be justified in terms of values.
At the subjective level of the potential migrant there will be a variety of obvious motives that entirely justify migration. If they were to move into a continental virgin wilderness, as with the Maori when they settled New Zealand, they would be well justified by any end-value. What they and later settlers did to the natural life there is another ethical debate. In the present world there is no such wilderness, even in South America. No migration at any scale today and in the future can disregard settled societies and communities.
In a world controlled by authoritarian commerce, any number of immigrants and any size of population may be considered an asset. Provisional on the natural environment being controlled and subdued. The social environment would be as suits industry.
In a more anarchistic economy, similar considerations would apply, although less controlled, and tending to ignore the natural environment until the proverbial eleventh hour - if then.
A potential receptor society that is responsibly altruistic, would be in an ethical predicament. Its primary responsibility being to its own social and natural environment, cultural and ethical traditions. At the global level, of relations between national societies, there must be a desire to permit a new home in, or carved out of existing national areas. If the global situation is antipathetic to altruism, and even in a state of chaos, there must rapidly come a point at which the migrants must be told to remain in their existing homeland. The rest of the world, so far as it is altruistic, having a bounden duty to try and ameliorate or remove whatever problem the émigrés face at home.

Morality - Moral Codes
Moral codes tend to be pragmatic sets of rules for conduct of individuals and perhaps society as a whole. It is what many people think of as ethics - as in the Decalogue. Unfortunately these laws tend to be of their time and place, and worded so simply as to be ethically dangerous. Where the Bible says, You shall not kill, this ambiguity is starkly portrayed. You shall not commit murder, is better. But murder has to be defined carefully and make space for manslaughter and degrees.
Definitions must be based on values, and will be so if only by default. If society is absolutist bordering on tyranny, killing may be legal where it serves the state, and only considered murder where the state is jeopardised - perhaps this is the morality of the Mafia.

Multi-culturalism see Diversity

N*

Natural
Behaviour that is natural, is the product of nature over thousands of generations.
However, it is today taken virtually as a moral value, where tendentious people want something that may be questionable. Very often this is qualified by a belief that human nature is created by 'god' as opposed to the base nature of animals. This qualification is a good as the definition person has of 'god'. If in terms of values, and specifically altruism, it will indeed be far from base nature. But, that also assumes base nature within man, is controlled by the 'godly' nature. If everything that human beings desire is equated with 'godliness' then a circle is turned back to base nature and the products of animal evolution.

Nature

O*

Oaths
Of the sort that are made on law courts and otherwise.
These are not values but are intrinsically based on values. Values that must relate to at least two parties and more realistically three. The oath taker. The Court. And the Society of which the court is a functionary.
The oath itself will generally be in grandiloquent language, but be subject to personal interpretation.
A witness in altruist society may be expected to tell what is 'true' without fear or favour. While in authoritarian society it would be consonant for the witness to say what is factual but expressed in biased language. In anarchist society it would be consonant for very little but extreme socially disruptive criminality to be of concern to a court, with evidence expressed truthfully for that purpose.
A court should be provided only with bare facts, as understood to be, and interpret the truth from that.
This is all quite apart from the possibility of subject matter brought to court being highly selective, and evidence also selective and biased, in some forms of society. And the way the convicted person is treated or penalised is another matter.

Opposites see Antonyms

P*

Phobia
A morbid fear of something - such as spiders. Irrational fear or dislike. This suffix when used to indicate mere opposition to, or a moral objection founded rationally, becomes a tool for the tendentious and irrational in society. A rational belief that homosexuality is 'wrong' is not homophobia - it is an essential debating point.

Population
Population in size and nature is essentially related to society and social values. Population related to CO2 has been mentioned. In the not so distant past both the distribution of cultures and numbers of people in them, was largely controlled by nature. Keeping cultures intact geographically, and keeping numbers restricted by limitations on food supply and by effects of disease. Villages tended therefore to be of such a size as to suited to social intimacy and a small local economy.
Technology has totally undermined that stability. All that remains is unlikely moral/political control of the community. Industry and commerce is entirely antipathetic to any such control. Personal wealth and health can be increased and improved so much that natural ego promotes this to the expense of nature. Where this is realized the environment is protected artificially to a minimal level for human 'sustainability'.

Populism
This is such a vague term that academics have a field day defining variations. Popular and egalitarian is about all that is consistent. Academics often seem to classify by what they see taking place that calls itself by that name, and it can be assumed that most of these will be pragmatic movements rather than outright idealistic. Demagogues may employ populist rhetoric for their own ends, but those ends are unlikely to be democratic, but if the demagogue is clever enough he will be supported by a seduced majority, which he may then cultivate to maintain power, in some sort of religious fervour.
Populism at one extreme can be consonant with Anarchism, where it is egalitarian and liberal.
At another extreme, as mentioned, it can be a basis for blind Authoritarianism, with minorities expunged.
Altruistic and responsible democracy must be opposed to this, based on a liberal view of humanity that is also idealistic.
The future for lazy minded humanity is probably not the last mentioned end-value.

Pragmatism Value
Which is the practical arm of the rational and responsible. We cannot do what we cannot do, so we must do what is possible. Values may dictate that altruistic society be multi-cultural. Pragmatism says only some form of society like the semi-autonomous state makes this realizable in the long run. Or indeed creates diversity. If society is to survive and not sink into Chaos, or survive only as Anarchism, or Totalitarianism, then much may often need to be done that is not ideally altruistic and egalitarian etc. Totalitarian society or states may be entirely pragmatic.

Property Goods
Property and Goods are not values but certainly have value, since without them life is not possible. Values arise from the purposes property is put to, and for which goods are made or created. Ownership, or control and use of real estate has been the basis of power, but today the control of goods and services supplants that largely.
We have an elected parliamentary government in this country which is a pragmatic compromise between former virtual absolutism of the crown, and government by people and society. This is, we trust, very far from outright Authoritarianism. But if government is able to legislate to permit private property, or to take over property into direct government use, then parliament does have ultimate authority and ownership.
An absolutist government would have disposal of all property, goods and services, for its own purpose with the population serving that purpose.
If people, severally, have control of all property on an egalitarian basis, ceding to government only what they authorise, then society is anarchist in the extreme.
Where society is egalitarian, but corporately controls property, ceding only to government what is necessary then it is altruist.
So far as property and goods are concerned.
In its nature anarchism must be fragile and unstable. In its nature altruist society depends on a strong social ethic, and would need a legislative system that is yet to be created, but which modern technology may enable.
Under our present parliamentary system, with private ownership, an excess of wealth in property and goods of all kinds accruing to a few individuals or corporations globally, may undermine democracy.

Punishment
A term which is commonly use with reference to crime. It tends to prejudice debate of the issue, rather as 'creation' prejudices debate of how the universe exists.
How would or should various forms of society fight crime.
Punishment is a term consonant with authoritarian society. People have a duty to obey, and not to do so merits punishment and probably by inflexible rules to suit the crime.
In anarchistic society, criminal law would be minimalist, and retribution a term more applicable.
While for altruism, restorative justice would have penalties to fit the criminal as much as the crime.

Q*

R*

Racism see 'ism
As with many other 'isms, this may be employed as a value, and is consonant with extreme authoritarianism. Opposed to that are values that either ignore race and culture etc. on the one hand, or value it for the purpose of global diversity. Set against these, the Chaos view of race is that of denigrating other groups than one's own on the basis of race, culture or caste, as inferior and sub-human.
A slightly biased tripartite view: "Stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination are understood as related but different concepts. In this tripartite view, stereotypes reflect expectations and beliefs about the characteristics of members of groups perceived as different from one's own, prejudice represents the emotional response, and discrimination refers to actions."
At a lower level there are mere insults to people on a race basis, and even an authoritarian state may find insulting servants undesirable. It is abuse and to be dealt with accordingly. However, that is not to be confused with freedom to make sociological statements based on evidence, valid or invalid as may be proved. A 'White' community may exhibit criminal tendencies, not intrinsically because it is white, but because of a particular environment that has been imposed on it or evolved by it.
At a lower level, there are stereotypes for all racial and social groups. If they have validity then pointing them out is only 'racism' if it is used to be insulting, and that is the term to use - insult.
Perhaps there are good stereotypes, but is it racism to use them too.

Racism - Employment
Cultures on a global basis will be treated according to end-values that prevail for national societies, or the lack of them. At the lowest level of society the local community is a body of individuals or families, that has to be treated as a whole but with cultural sympathies. Some forms of global end-values would remove any ethnic minorities. Pragmatically these minorities will continue indefinitely, particularly in altruist society.
In such a community, employment will be dealt with on an egalitarian basis. That signifies that each candidate will be assessed for his own qualifications for the job. Therefore 'race' and culture will not be a factor, except as it is an asset or a liability. A particular minority, at a particular time, may have problems with language, education, and ethical values. But to have a mechanical or mathematical system for employment that distributes jobs in proportion to the size of ethnic groups, is itself racist.

Reality - the real world
Many people end a discussion by talking about being in the real world. This almost always tends to be an observation about the contemporary world as it exists in practical terms. It is obvious that day to day actions must suit that reality. But where the long term is considered merely acting day to day may end in total disaster - as with climate change, or ignoring Hitler until he actually invades.
Long term 'reality' must be about end-values, and this will be so even if no end-values are recognised, since they will impose themselves. The real world for rational humanity is essentially idealistic in a positive, negative, or ambivalent way. Negative and positive may be different for those with different end-values.

Religion
The difference between religion and any other holistic philosophy, is difficult to determine, other than where religion is founded on an irrational belief in revelation, and in which logic follows after faith. For ethics what is most significant is that Religion is not an ethical value, basic or end-value. Any values will be found within it. If a particular religion is based on values, then it may be judged or measured accordingly. If it based on the idea of a powerful and dominant god, then it is different ethically to god as a moral guide. But in either case, god would be authoritarian, and man subservient.
Modern religion is often a belief that truth may exist in mythology.

Religion - church
What may be termed Church Religion, is that which the established churches profess at any time. It is characteristic of any traditionalist ancient institution that those who support what it preaches are more likely to become members than those who protest and disagree, and in a 'free society' heresy may therefore win.
But that may simply be the voice of populism, rather than rational debate.

Religion
If religion has no effect on people there is no reason for it to exist. If it has an effect then one religion may have a different effect to another, and this may be important socially. If they all have the same effect ..........................

Responsibility - Duty Value
This basic value is a dimension opposed to anarchism. The two terms go together, since at one end-value duty is of one person to another and society. At the other end-value it is responsibility to authority in some form that culminates in a mythical 'god'. Or the other way round - altruism signifies responsibility, whereas. authoritarianism signifies duty, which is better understood.

Rights Value
If Rights were another name for basic values, or some values, then it would be absurd to talk of having a right to those values, such as equality. We have equality as part of an end-value we espouse. We do not have a right to life, since life is a set of those values. We may have a 'right' not to have our life taken away.
It is therefore more logical for Rights to be a value in its own right - so to speak. We have rights as opposed to duties, and those rights are what the end-value should enable us to do or have or protect. Not perhaps specific things, such as a car, but generalised attributes such as a right to travel where this does not conflict with other rights and values. Rights in a thoroughly authoritarian society are minimal.

S*

Secular
Secularism is a philosophy set against what is termed Religion. It is barely if at all a value. Indeed, what is the religion or religions it stands opposed to. Religions are adept at not being bigoted when they, or those in charge of an established religion, choose not to be. Belief in 'god' may be based on rational evidence, however flawed. A secular society may espouse religious freedom, but it must have reservations.

Self-defence see Firearms
That everyone but an absolute pacifist will defend himself and his family against harm, is granted. It applies to all societies that are law-abiding and opposed to criminal Chaos. Constantly in the news today, is firearms used in attacks on innocent people, and also owned for defence against such attacks. It is quite logical that people who are armed may be able to ward off attack by criminals and terrorists. Set against this is the effect of gun ownership on society. It would appear to create a weapons 'culture' or ethic, so that citizens become less passive and indeed accidents also happen. The incidence of gun related deaths internationally may by cited. Give a gun to an altruist and he, or his children, may be influenced to become more aggressive.
It is consonant with Authoritarianism and Tyranny that only the 'police' should be armed, in order to exert control.
it is consonant with Anarchism that all people, or responsible adults, should be armed for self-defence.
It is consonant with Altruism that ordinary people should not be armed, relying on unarmed tactics, and on a police force designed to protect the individual.

Servitude End-value
It is perhaps generally thought that master and slave are opposites. That is indeed true as one person set against another. But what is being treated of by this exercise is society and societies, rather than particular individuals in society. At the very least that must be the family. The opposite of freedom is authoritarianism which implies servitude, in which some form of authority is the master. The opposite of a free society is a slave society composed of masters and servants.

Sharia and Religious Law
Sharia has more attention today than any other form of religious law. It is not a value but must contains values. As a system of law that has survived for centuries it has the merit of welding a society together and avoiding both chaos, and moral relativism. Being portrayed as 'Gods law' it is therefore made to appear virtuous, and above criticism, indeed it may even be imagined as altruistic. But if it is fixed and mechanical in its application, with X act deserving Y punishment, then it is entirely authoritarian. The feature of which is that the laws it contains are not subject to criticism by any values other than authority. Altruist society intrinsically considers value first, and on making a poor choice of them and their relationship, will formulate laws for the time. Tomorrow is another day!
Religious law cannot be justified from without, there is no beyond for it. The law is considered virtuous and values are therefore fitted to the law.
A religious person who is also something of an altruist might however find enough ambiguity in texts to modify interpretations.
On the other hand the altruist who has Sharia to contend with may be changed by it, or his children.

Sin
For some religion this is disobedience to the will and commands of God. On this basis, Anarchism is a god for all people. Altruism is a god of beneficence.

Slavery see Servitude

Society
A society is an organised community or club, with the 'state' as a political-religious extension. It quite essentially has various levels for rational ethical purposes. At the lowest level ethics is about the way individual people relate together. At a higher level the family and extended family perhaps. At the national level it about how individuals, families, and other groups, relate together. Globally, it is much more about how national societies relate together. At an extreme the latter category may be expunged with nations ceasing to have any practical reality, in which case a global society, culture, 'religion', race, etc may be expected in the long run - vastly promoted by modern technology. A transition globally from nationalism to globalism can barely be anything but disruptive, and, by the altruist end-value a mistake.

State 'The State'
A state is an organized political community living under a single system of government. But it is not in itself an ethical value. It is 'good' or 'evil' as it is used or organised. To the anarchist it should be minimised, to the authoritarian it is maximised, to the altruist it is transmogrified into society so far as pragmatically possible.

T*

Tolerance Value
Tolerance is clearly a value consonant with freedom and equality, opposed to the authoritarian state or society. But to tolerate anything and everything is absurd, that would indeed be tantamount to chaos. In conjunction with egotism, tolerance may go to the extreme of anarchism, or moral relativism, in which sub-societies exist in tolerant autonomy on a basis of live and let live, or die. But the other end of this dimension of tolerance is allied to social responsibility. All that is tolerated in entirety is cultural diversity, pragmatically in autonomous sub-societies. Altruism or mutual welfare. What that welfare and ideal may be, derives from a multiplicity of values, including pragmatism, on a holistic basis embracing the whole of life.

Torture
The UN bans use of torture, no doubt in an attempt to civilize war and other forms of conflict. It is quite evident that if there were global chaos, with unrestrained warfare or lawless activity, torture would be an everyday occurrence. The moral question is as to how stable forms of society, based on law or at least authority, would behave.
An extreme authoritarian state might be averse to torture, and prefer more subtle forms of interrogation, but it would be entirely consonant for it to employ any means to preserve the state. The Inquisition is well known. Anarchist society, having minimal cohesion, would either fall apart under pressure, or protect its 'freedom' by all means necessary. The end justifying the means.
Altruist society would be under greatest moral pressure, being barely viable in a world with conflicting end-values. A pacifist society or state is barely conceivable, and would be torn apart under external pressure. The unfortunate reality is of its altruism being for internal consumption. Living in a world at odds with itself, altruist society would recognise that the global society is at best anarchic, and at worst chaotic. The rules of anarchism are not those of altruism. The employment of torture would be resisted as much as possible, but it would be immoral to allow 'democracy to die'.
Altruist society today may be able to deal with and subdue simple criminal activity, and do so internationally. There comes a point at which criminal becomes terrorist, with all the problems of definition, and a point at which war becomes so extreme that rules fail.

Traits
Traits are inbred characteristics. It may be assumed there are people who are naturally benevolent or hard and mean, and these people and their traits will be encouraged or not in different forms of society and circumstances. Natural benevolence must be helpful to the altruist society, but only if it is rationally managed. Random benevolence might be quite destructive, if the 'evils' of the world are ignored or not dealt with sensibly. People who have no empathy, or are hard and unfeeling, may do well in harsh forms of society opposed to altruism.
it is the job of altruist society, to accept traits that it cannot change, and channel them usefully. As with rank capitalists, who have their merits as long as they do not dictate to society and government.

Tyranny End-value.
Unrestrained use of power. Beyond authoritarianism

U*

V*

Value Fundamental or End Value
An elementary ethical value is neither good or bad, it is simply a definition of what humanity is.
Combinations of these values denote end-values, and we do not so much choose our end value as, by education and inheritance, already exist in an end-value. Such rationality as we have may enable us to modify where we stand, and that itself implies a relationship with the rest of society that enables or disables us. We view 'right' and 'wrong' or virtue and vice from the standpoint of the end-value that is instilled into us.

Vice
Something considered evil. Some religious or spiritual people believe evil exists as some sort of entity. But they can only believe this by having a view of what constitutes evil. Although what may usually be signified is nasty and directly harmful. If a spirit pervades the universe bent on outright destruction and Chaos, then it would be entirely anti-social. Within society, any vice or evil must be based on an existing belief about society and human relations. Anarchist - altruist, as may be.

Virtue - see Vice