Case study in ethics

[thinkdr]

.


The best defense is to run away from the potential danger.

Was it Only_Humean who taught me that? I think so; but I may be wrong

Running in the opposite direction from the threat beats even Brazilian Wrestling skill, and Judo, and Aikido, as a defense.


.

[Fixed Cross]

Yes, your "ethics" are indeed simple cowardice and betrayal.

No matter what the attack is about or who else may suffer of it, run.

[Karpel Tunnel]

.


The best defense is to run away from the potential danger.

Was it Only_Humean who taught me that? I think so; but I may be wrong

Running in the opposite direction from the threat beats even Brazilian Wrestling skill, and Judo, and Aikido, as a defense.


.

1) running is not always an option
2) it's a bad option for a slow person, or a slower person - you eliminate much of your potential defense running and you eliminate all of your potential offense - which is a good defense.
3) it certainly does not beat having martial arts skills. A person with martial arts skills can run, or they can fight better than someone without those skills.
4) running can invite future torment. Kids often realize this. You run, that's fun. The bullies get to feel dominant. They will do it again, why not. I faced down and lost to a bully, but for standing my ground, he left me alone after that and even considered me his friend. I wouldn't say I considered him my friend, but I sure was more open to him after that than I would have been if I'd run away for the next few years. Then I would have hated his guts.
5) if the people who listen to you all start running away, what does that do in general to society? The people who are bullies or violent or criminal are not going to listen to you. They will still do what they want. And now, if you successfully convince those who will listen, no one is putting up a fight anymore.
6) Just a simple NO to this idea. I live here, I don't cede my home planet to others.

[Karpel Tunnel]

In the post of Aug. 25, 2018 at 3:04 p.m. I asked this question about your alternative theory to my synthesis of theories, and you never did respond, Karpel.

I am trying to figure out why my morality is different from your morality. So I ask you again: How do you define the term "morality"? What is your Ethical Theory? How do you justify it?

I could start another thread if I want to talk about my morality. It seems to me you are trying to see if my morality might have some of the same potential problems yours does. Even if it does, that does not take away from the criticisms I aim at yours. We could both be confused, wrong, partially correct. It is a separate issue.

Yes, it is immoral for a slave to murder his slaveholder although I would not judge him if he did. More moral would be for that slave to escape and join the "Underground Railway" if he or she possibly could find a way to do so.

Well, that's a big if. And you just did judged that slave who murdered his slaveholder. You judged labeled his action immoral. Whatever your motivation for NOT judging him, might lead you consider the action NOT immoral.

I wrote in an early post that in emergency situations ethics is suspended;

Why not say that ethics are affected by the context? IOW that the situation affects what is ethical.

survival is utmost. Of course poking the eye of one raping you is highly moral if it is wise to do so. If it only brings on more violence toward yourself it is not a wise course of action, and thus is less moral.
It was nice of you, Karpel, to put yourself in the situation of a woman being raped.

I didn't put myself in the situation of a woman being raped. I chose, I think obviously, a situation that would probe your ethics, and a situation that would be tougher for you. I put you in the situation where you would either judge her immoral or allow for violence.

I don't see how you can judge the woman less moral for the outcome of a choice she cannot fully predict.

If you run from a fist fight and get hit by a car, rather than punched many times, is your choice less moral?

I'd be glad to discuss your question, "What if Capitalism itself is immoral?"

Define for us, please, exactly what you mean when you say "Capitalism," and by "immoral." Then we can discuss it.

I think I raised the issue in relation to the mall and the NA burial grounds. It seemed to me that you came rapidly to a solution - make a respectful burial ground within the grounds of the mall. Phyllo and I pointed out various issues there, but I wanted to challenge, I think, the simplicity of the application of your ethics. Perhaps the very system that puts so much power in the few with money - especially with current capitalism in much of the West again - is fundamentally immoral. Capitalism allows for the undermining of democracy by giving more political power to the rich and to corporations in any of a number of ways, now to levels where we are an oligarchy in the states. That could be considered immoral. Capitalism also allows one to earn money not through labor. That also could be considered immoral. I won't even mention the whole banks can give themselves money out of nothing thing.

[Fixed Cross]

5) if the people who listen to you all start running away, what does that do in general to society?

[thinkdr]

In the post of Aug. 25, 2018 at 3:04 p.m. I asked this question about your alternative theory to my synthesis of theories, and you never did respond, Karpel.

I am trying to figure out why my morality is different from your morality. So I ask you again: How do you define the term "morality"? What is your Ethical Theory? How do you justify it?

... if I want to talk about my morality. It seems to me you are trying to see if my morality might have some of the same potential problems yours does. ... We could both be ... partially correct.

That is NOT what I'm "trying to see"!!! I hold that to be Ethical is to be a virtue-finder rather than a fault-finder. One is to avoid telling others of their shortcomings, and avoid picking holes in their writing attempts. Instead one is to build on what goodness they can find in someone-else's output, be cooperative, strive to upgrade and improve what they find in another person's theories.

As you could easily have learned if only you read over my brief paper, being Ethical is creating value in your encounters with another individual - creating a win/win outcome. You would do this if you care; and you will care if you perceive that individual as highly-valuable - which you will do by the very definition of "Ethics" itself ..assuming you have made a commitment to be ethical and moral. You will do that because you are aware of the reality: that is what is in your true self-interest

And yes, we are both partially correct! You got that right! My Ethical Theory is highly tentative and subject to revision when better ideas come along.

Why not say... that the situation affects what is ethical.

I DID say that on virtually the first line of the first page of text (p. 3) of the short essay titled "The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts" which I offered to people at this Forum early in this thread as a reference worth reading. Instead of checking it out - as good students would do - I was charged with being a promoter!
Click on this link to get the evidence: http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20 ... ncepts.pdf

I wrote in an early post that in emergency situations ethics is suspended
Earlier I also wrote:

survival is utmost. Of course poking the eye of one raping you is highly moral if it is wise to do so. If it only brings on more violence toward yourself it is not a wise course of action, and thus is less moral.

I put you in the situation where you would either judge her immoral or allow for violence.

To be moral is to be true to yourself. If, as a result of a policy you choose, you bring injury upon yourself, then you in retrospect were not as moral as you could have been had you chosen more wisely. Getting raped for sure is 'an emergency situation' when, as I said, survival is your highest priority, so that you will later be in a position to be helpful to others, to be kind, generous, noble, caring, responsible, etc. If you get a genuine rapist mad enough he may kill you; for he is a woman-hater after all.
[Many times a girl will mistakenly believe she is about to get raped when all the guy wants is a little intimacy, wants to come close to her.]

I'd be glad to discuss your queston, "What if Capitalism itself is immoral?"

The system that puts so much power in the few with money - especially with current capitalism in much of the West again - is fundamentally immoral. Capitalism allows for the undermining of democracy by giving more political power to the rich and to corporations in any of a number of ways, now to levels where we are an oligarchy in the states. That could be considered immoral. Capitalism also allows one to earn money not through labor. That also could be considered immoral. I won't even mention the whole banks can give themselves money out of nothing thing.

I completely agree.
The gross inequality of wealth (that we find in the USA and elsewhere e.g., Colombia, Peru, etc.) has all kinds of side effects. (It is hard to say if they are unintended consequences.) One of them is that people are less-inclined to trust one another.

[phyllo]

To be moral is to be true to yourself.

That's obviously false since all sorts of things that people want to do are labelled as immoral and suppressed. To be moral, one has to be untrue to oneself to some degree - adjusting your behavior "as appropriate".

Unless you want to claim that there is a "real moral self" that doesn't actually want to do the immoral stuff that people do and that your current self is some sort of fake self.

[thinkdr]

To be moral is to be true to yourself.

That's obviously false since all sorts of things that people want to do are labelled as immoral and suppressed. To be moral, one has to be untrue to oneself to some degree - adjusting your behavior "as appropriate".

Thank you for addressing this topic, phyllo.

The definition I gave here was incomplete. To get the more-accurate definition
click on the section which discusses the concept "morality" in the first link below in the signature.

Then if you want to comprehend it in more depth, see pp.29-35 here::
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf

Let me know what you think once you study the more-complete definition -- one that is not false - but highly-tentative nonetheless; subject to revision when better ideas come along.

The definition given in those writings is dynamic in two respects"
Morality = Increasing correspondence with an ever-improving self-ideal. To be moral is to keep growing ethically. Your Self-concept concerns three factors: your observable conduct [the self], your self-image [the Self], and whether there is a match between the two. {Many folks have multiple Selves; and many who don't have split-personalities are confused.} Your self-image [or self-definition], if you want to be moral, is to keep improving throughout your lifetime.

[phyllo]

I read it.

I think that it's a mistake to include 'prudence' in morality. That makes evaluations much more difficult and produces all sorts of bizarre results ...

- doing any 'good' which results in personal injury gets labelled as immoral.
- you don't know if something is moral or immoral before doing it because you don't know if you will be injured.
- altruistic acts become immoral.

concrete examples ...

A woman who resists a rapist and gets hurt is labelled immoral while a woman who lays back and does not resist a rapist is labelled moral.

A person who resists a weak tyrant, and suffers no harm, is moral while a person who resists a strong tyrant, and is tortured or killed in the process, is immoral.

[phyllo]

The definition given in those writings is dynamic in two respects"
Morality = Increasing correspondence with an ever-improving self-ideal. To be moral is to keep growing ethically. Your Self-concept concerns three factors: your observable conduct [the self], your self-image [the Self], and whether there is a match between the two. {Many folks have multiple Selves; and many who don't have split-personalities are confused.} Your self-image [or self-definition], if you want to be moral, is to keep improving throughout your lifetime.

I think it is also a mistake to define morality in terms of 'self'.

Trying to get a understanding of 'self' is even more complex than trying to get an understanding of morality.

That entangles your definition of morality in complications that don't need to be there. It makes the definition less clear and less simple.

[Karpel Tunnel]

That is NOT what I'm "trying to see"!!! I hold that to be Ethical is to be a virtue-finder rather than a fault-finder. One is to avoid telling others of their shortcomings, and avoid picking holes in their writing attempts. Instead one is to build on what goodness they can find in someone-else's output, be cooperative, strive to upgrade and improve what they find in another person's theories.

OK, that's consistant, but I still think that it would make the thread very complicated to bring in my ideas of what is ethical,IN GENERAL!, while we are also dealing with your ideas.

As you could easily have learned if only you read over my brief paper, being Ethical is creating value in your encounters with another individual - creating a win/win outcome. You would do this if you care; and you will care if you perceive that individual as highly-valuable - which you will do by the very definition of "Ethics" itself ..assuming you have made a commitment to be ethical and moral. You will do that because you are aware of the reality: that is what is in your true self-interest

I understand that you think if I agree with you I will be doing positive things. Most people think this when they argue for what they think is good.

A conversation could be built up the way you want it and perhaps you will find people who will just agree openly and not mention what they have problems with.

I find that less useful for me in this kind of context.

I DID say that on virtually the first line of the first page of text (p. 3) of the short essay titled "The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts" which I offered to people at this Forum early in this thread as a reference worth reading. Instead of checking it out - as good students would do - I was charged with being a promoter!
Click on this link to get the evidence: http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20 ... ncepts.pdf

1) I was responding to precisely what you wrote, which I cited. If what I cited does not agree with your essay, then what I cited was problematic for you also. If what I cited does fit with your essay then my point holds.

2) I understand that you want to put your essays online. But you will notice that this is very rare here in this forum and often meets similar problems when other people do it. This is a philosophy discussion forum, where we put our ideas in words somewhere between a conversation and an essay. I have specficially explained elsewhere that I do not want to read longer documents online. I very, very rarely do that with anything. I prefer books and there is good scientific date, beyond simply respecting my preference, that reading online leads to less information retention.

I wrote in an early post that in emergency situations ethics is suspended

Fine, then you contradicted yourself.

survival is utmost. Of course poking the eye of one raping you is highly moral if it is wise to do so. If it only brings on more violence toward yourself it is not a wise course of action, and thus is less moral.

I could be wrong I think the formulation was that it was no longer moral, not less moral. Personally I cannot imagine judging the rape victim for not being able to fully predict the consequences of her action. Further, we don't know the long term general effects of poking out a rapists eye - perhaps more potential victims and victims will resist and rapes will go down.

I put you in the situation where you would either judge her immoral or allow for violence.

To be moral is to be true to yourself. If, as a result of a policy you choose, you bring injury upon yourself, then you in retrospect were not as moral as you could have been had you chosen more wisely. [/quote]
So if you run away from an attack, trip and crack your skull open, you were less or not moral?

Getting raped for sure is 'an emergency situation' when, as I said, survival is your highest priority, so that you will later be in a position to be helpful to others, to be kind, generous, noble, caring, responsible, etc. If you get a genuine rapist mad enough he may kill you; for he is a woman-hater after all.
[Many times a girl will mistakenly believe she is about to get raped when all the guy wants is a little intimacy, wants to come close to her.]

Well, sure. A woman could certainly overreact. I think however we can all imagine where the goal would be clear.

[Arcturus Descending]

phyllo

I think that it's a mistake to include 'prudence' in morality. That makes evaluations much more difficult and produces all sorts of bizarre results ...

You mean in *judging what is moral*? Why would you say that? The definition of prudence is

pru·dence
ˈpro͞odns/Submit
noun
the quality of being prudent; cautiousness.
"we need to exercise prudence in such important matters"
synonyms: wisdom, judgment, good judgment, common sense, sense, sagacity, shrewdness,

It seems to me that by trying to be *prudent* and exercise good judgment, et cetera, when it comes to discerning what is moral and ethical under different circumstances is a good tool and can only be practical in getting at the truth.

- doing any 'good' which results in personal injury gets labelled as immoral.

- you don't know if something is moral or immoral before doing it because you don't know if you will be injured.
- altruistic acts become immoral.

Are the above your actual thoughts or are you saying that exercising prudence leads to this kind of thinking?
Before I respond to that.

concrete examples ...

A woman who resists a rapist and gets hurt is labelled immoral while a woman who lays back and does not resist a rapist is labelled moral.

A person who resists a weak tyrant, and suffers no harm, is moral while a person who resists a strong tyrant, and is tortured or killed in the process, is immoral.

Alright. So just to be sure, you are not agreeing with this kind of thinking - I hope. Are you or are you not?

[phyllo]

You mean in *judging what is moral*? Why would you say that? The definition of prudence is

pru·dence
ˈpro͞odns/Submit
noun
the quality of being prudent; cautiousness.
"we need to exercise prudence in such important matters"
synonyms: wisdom, judgment, good judgment, common sense, sense, sagacity, shrewdness,

It seems to me that by trying to be *prudent* and exercise good judgment, et cetera, when it comes to discerning what is moral and ethical under different circumstances is a good tool and can only be practical in getting at the truth.

I use the word in the sense of "regard for one's own interests".

I think the first step to evaluating the morality of a situation is to drop yourself out of it. IOW, what is the evaluation if I am not involved? That produces a 'more' objective evaluation. It's a detached view with fewer personal biases.

The second step is to put yourself back in and decide what you are going to do.

The first step evaluated moral right and wrong. The second step evaluates a practical right and wrong personal response.

The separation seems fairly natural. I don't think there is morality in the absence of other people. Alone on a deserted island, there is no moral right and wrong. There is, however, prudent action - actions which help your survival or hinder it, improve your quality of life or reduce it.

One can say that brushing your teeth is prudent both on a deserted island and within society - for your own personal health. If we consider it as part of morality, then people can say that you are being immoral if you don't brush your teeth. Does it seem reasonable to make it a moral issue? I don't think so.

I see there the rise of the "nanny state" where your personal choices become matters of political policy.

[thinkdr]

I use the term "prudence" in the sense of "being in balance." It connotes "the middle way" or "The Golden Mean." It means, to me, neither over-doing nor under-doing. It further means neither overvaluing nor undervaluing; neither being obsessed [or infatuated] nor missing opportunity; avoiding rigidity and dogmatism.

Also, in the Unified Theory of Ethics "morality" is a personal trait.

Phyllo: When is the last time you were on a desert island? People here on this Forum bring up such exceptional cases! True, every exception tests a rule; but let's be practical and relevant to daily life. Where I live, I have neighbors, and a wife; so I have people around me. I find myself with others in the elevator of my condo, of which I am the President of the Condo Association. Sooner or later I bump into other people. ...but this is not about me. It's about building a superior Ethical Theory.

Just as "value" in general involves a correspondence between two sets,
"moral value" does also. Morality and moral value mean the same. The two sets for morality are the set of one's behaviors and the set of one's evolving ideals. To me, morality means "walking the walk, not just talking the talk." It means avoiding hypocrisy and corruption; it means authenticity: being real (rather than a pretender or a phony.)

If you ruin your health, or by a lack of due caution injure yourself, you are less strong, and thus less in a position to be of help to another individual. I would NOT label this "immoral." Instead I would say (in the role of a coach): Ask yourself: How is this working for you? Is it getting you to your goals? ...If it isn't, isn't it time for a change? Get back into balance! Be true to your own true self.
Recall what Shakespeare had one of his characters speak, in 1570, "To thine own self be true, and it follows as Night the Day, thou canst then not be false to any man!"
BTW, which item did you read? Why not go on to the next?

And Karpel: Yes, I do like people to agree with me. Don't you?
If your criticism is constructive, I very much welcome it, and want to learn from it. But if it is of a destructive sort -- who needs it?!
In working to build a superior theory of Ethics I of course seek cooperation on this project. Hence I want critics to have a cooperative attitude. If they merely find fault or put me down, with derision, I would then prefer the company of others. Isn't that normal?
When you bring up decentralization I agree with it; when you bring up waging violent war I disagree, but do it civilly. We can disagree agreeably. Ethics allows for that. It is a mistake to conclude that I always demand total agreement. No, what I seek is consensus. Let's find common ground. Let's "Build not burn."

[phyllo]

I use the term "prudence" in the sense of "being in balance." It connotes "the middle way" or "The Golden Mean." It means, to me, neither over-doing nor under-doing. It further means neither overvaluing nor undervaluing; neither being obsessed [or infatuated] nor missing opportunity; avoiding rigidity and dogmatism.

Okay. I stated briefly what I meant when using the word.

Also, in the Unified Theory of Ethics "morality" is a personal trait.

We disagree on what morality is.

Phyllo: When is the last time you were on a desert island? People here on this Forum bring up such exceptional cases! True, every exception tests a rule; but let's be practical and relevant to daily life. Where I live, I have neighbors, and a wife; so I have people around me. I find myself with others in the elevator of my condo, of which I am the President of the Condo Association. Sooner or later I bump into other people. ...but this is not about me. It's about building a superior Ethical Theory.

That's pretty limiting, isn't it?

Just as "value" in general involves a correspondence between two sets,
"moral value" does also. Morality and moral value mean the same. The two sets for morality are the set of one's behaviors and the set of one's evolving ideals. To me, morality means "walking the walk, not just talking the talk." It means avoiding hypocrisy and corruption; it means authenticity: being real (rather than a pretender or a phony.)

Well, that's what it means to you. I think that a serial killer is authentic when he is killing ... but a society can't function with that much authenticity. People have to make concessions. In exchange, society offers some goodies.

Realistically, one has to be fake for everyone's sake.

[Karpel Tunnel]

And Karpel: Yes, I do like people to agree with me. Don't you?

Of course. But I was not criticizing you for wanting agreement...I said...

I understand that you think if I agree with you I will be doing positive things. Most people think this when they argue for what they think is good.

Let's look at this paragraph again....

As you could easily have learned if only you read over my brief paper, being Ethical is creating value in your encounters with another individual - creating a win/win outcome. You would do this if you care; and you will care if you perceive that individual as highly-valuable - which you will do by the very definition of "Ethics" itself ..assuming you have made a commitment to be ethical and moral. You will do that because you are aware of the reality: that is what is in your true self-interest

As you could easily have learned

I have said earlier that I do not like to read longer documents online and you will notice that longer documents, written elsewhere, is the rare exception here. People use this as a discussion forum. so 'as you could have easily learned' since I wrote it in one of your threads, this is not something I will be doing, and this not doing on my part fits with the culture of discussion you have joined. There is nothing wrong with asking people to read your essays, but when you act as if I have shortcomings because I have not, it is not on good grounds.

You would do this if you care

Note the assumption in this. The assumption is that if I do not agree with you then I do not care. Or, I am not trying for win/win situations. You do realize that what you did in this sentence is to frame it as 'agree with me or you do not care' or that I am unethical or both.. Whereas it is clear, I think, that my disagreements with you are based on caring for people. Perhaps you are right about how we must act and think, perhaps you are wrong, but here you are presuming that if I disagree with you and your system it shows a lack of care. You seem to think all situations allow for win/win. That does not fit my experience. I see, however, that criticism can be win win.

That is the kind of thing I was reacting to when I said 'Of course you think it leads to good things if I agree with you.' I was not saying it was strange that you liked having people agree.

If your criticism is constructive, I very much welcome it, and want to learn from it. But if it is of a destructive sort -- who needs it?!

Which of my criticisms was destructive?

In working to build a superior theory of Ethics I of course seek cooperation on this project. Hence I want critics to have a cooperative attitude. If they merely find fault or put me down, with derision, I would then prefer the company of others. Isn't that normal?

I have been pointing out what I think are problematic aspects of your system. If you can show me and yourself how these aspects are not problematic, that would be constructive, yes? If your can't, then you have learned something important, yes?

It seems like you want people to just agree. That's human. Me too. But when people don't agree with me, I do not criticize them for being destructive. I see it as an opportunity to see if what I am saying makes sense to me, to them, in general. It can be very frustrating. Sometimes I think the other people are being willfully stubborn, sometimes I think they are being dumb. And they, me.

But you seem to be upset that people are being critical, which is not the same as destructive.

When you bring up decentralization I agree with it; when you bring up waging violent war I disagree, but do it civilly. We can disagree agreeably. Ethics allows for that. It is a mistake to conclude that I always demand total agreement. No, what I seek is consensus. Let's find common ground. Let's "Build not burn."

Fine, but part of philosophy is in fact seeking counterexamples and seeing if something actually holds up. I do not think you countered the arguments Phyllo and I made about the morality of violence. It seems to me you changed your wordings, contradicted yourself, restated your opinion without argument and sometimes simply moved past objections. We all do these sorts of things and not necessarily with intention, but it will lead to continued criticism. It seems like you think I am not being a good student when I do not read your papers, which in fact is an expectation only on your part for how people should behave in an online discussion forum. I pointed out above how some of your statements come off and morally judgmental and not on good grouns.

Here, instead of seeing the value of criticism, my posts get categorized as burning and destructive.

And once I noticed that you judged criticism, per se, yes, I had some derision, and yes, I concluded that you did not want to deal with rational, not insulting criticism of your ideas, but just wanted agreement. And honestly, I don't know how else to interpret it.

I am not sure you are aware of the ways in which you come off as morally superior and having the answers. I do see that you take great pains to ask for more information. I do see that you thank people for feedback. But there are other comments, such as the ones I mention in this post above, where there is implicit judgements and derision of others. Further in your defense of non-violence you often based your arguments on the idea that people could have, if they were smarter or more skilled, have prevented any possible need for war. To me this seems unfair. It uses the benefit of hindsight and a kind of 'if people had agreed with me we would never get into situations with people like Hitler' which seems to lack humility. Phyllo and I, it seems to me, do not think we have some perfect cure. We are looking at a world where most people will not listen to us and in that world there are sometimes, horrible forces.

When you respond to our perhaps correct, perhaps not arguments, it is as if you could have eliminated all threats. If people listened to you there would be no Hitlers in charge of war machines. If people listened to you they would know how to negotiate instead of make war.

Well, if people ALL listened to me and Phyllo, I am quite sure there would not be any need for war either. But this is not going to be the situation.

So it comes off as, again, superior. People failed to deal correctly, as you would have it seems, with Hitler, so passifist responses would have worked, it's just that people made mistakes. Mistakes are coming towards us from the future and they have been made already.

If you presented your position as 'I believe in non'violence and I realize this may or may not lead to less pain, suffering and death, but I believe it is the most moral choice.' Well, I might disgree, but you are not claiming to know it is going to work.

But if you go over your posts in response to us, it seems like you have the deontological AND the consequentionalist postions. No, no, it could not possibly have reduced the amount of suffering and deaths that the US entered the war.

I am afraid that that kind of hubris is going to bring out pretty strong criticism. I am not sure it reduced the suffering, but I think it did.

On some level I am reacting to what seems like a holier than thou attitude. I understand that it seems like people just jump on your ideas and that certainly does happen. But from my position I experience it as reacting to a moral position that is claiming it knows things it cannot know and judges people when they, even as victims, respond in perfectly natural ways to violence. Because it does not work out in ways it would be hard for them to predict.

And if I respond to what you write here - as opposed to your essays - you tell me that in the essays you say X. But that begs the question of why here you said what you said. If you say that ethics is suspended when you are attacked violently, then here you would not see someone as acting immorally but not judge them. You would not see them as acting immorally.

The way you have responded here to counterexamples and objections has at times come off evasive.

Instead of 'if you read my essay' you could respond 'I see how that sentence gives the impression you are reacting to, here is what I believe....'

[Serendipper]

I am trying to figure out why my morality is different from your morality.

Morality is always relative and can't be anything else. We could say that morality is the consensus of popular opinion.

[Serendipper]

.


The best defense is to run away from the potential danger.

Was it Only_Humean who taught me that? I think so; but I may be wrong

Running in the opposite direction from the threat beats even Brazilian Wrestling skill, and Judo, and Aikido, as a defense.


.

Run from a bear and you're guaranteed to die. Stand and fight and you might live.

[barbarianhorde]

It makes you suspect this run rin tin tun is waiting on the edge with an army of people that cant fight to invasion the world here but needs to convince a us first that we can't fight them.

Running will never win you a fight and also not get a woman pregnant.

[barbarianhorde]

Heres a question for the OP thinkdr so I might understand his plans a bit better.

Can u show a set of real life success booked by running away that in your vision enhanced human society.

[thinkdr]

Here, for your consideration, is my latest essay. It does not advocate running away. Check it out though anyway. It is on Moral Philosophy:


http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20 ... ncepts.pdf




After you have carefully read it let us know whether you think it makes a worthwhile contribution to the literature on ethical theory and practice. Okay?


.

[barbarianhorde]

Ahahaha
Running away are you?
A braver dude would just say "no sorry I have zip"

[thinkdr]

Don't believe that I "have zip."

Please tell us what grave danger you faced this past year, barbarianhorde, how you stood up to it and faced it down? Was it a wild bear?




http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/HOW%20 ... SFULLY.pdf

Behavioral ethics is based upon Neurology, Cognitive Theory, and Evolutionary Biology. It has applications in Economics, the Legal System, Education, and the business world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviora ... _Economics
Also see: https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/subj ... ral-ethics
The Unified Theory of Ethics, presented in part in that document linked to above, will absorb into itself, into its grand synthesis, the findings of Behavioral Ethics. This project has already begun.

Comments? Questions? Upgrades?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Run from a bear and you're guaranteed to die. Stand and fight and you might live.

And standing tall and looking ready to fight is the best strategy at certain distances. You might not even have to fight. And you're right of course that the last thing you want to do is trigger predator chase instincts. A lot of big predators are not used to us as food but when we run, it screams ' catch me, kill me, eat me.' The last two not necessarily in that order.

[barbarianhorde]

Run from a bear and you're guaranteed to die. Stand and fight and you might live.

And standing tall and looking ready to fight is the best strategy at certain distances. You might not even have to fight. And you're right of course that the last thing you want to do is trigger predator chase instincts. A lot of big predators are not used to us as food but when we run, it screams ' catch me, kill me, eat me.' The last two not necessarily in that order.

heh heh
Some more truth over here.

Good day on the site.