[MD] Values

[Joseph Maurer]

On Friday 28 September 2007 11:44:41 AM Ham writes to Ron, SA, Marsha, David...

Hi Ham and All,

[Ham]
Whenever we try to apply morality to value, we run into problems. This is 
because morality (normative ethics) is based on the 'summum bonum' principle 
of virtue as conceived by the early Greeks. It is an attempt to quantify 
value in order to achieve what utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham called "the 
greatest good for the greatest number of people."

Here is what Wikipedia says about utilitarian morality:

"Since utilitarians judge all actions by their ability to maximize good 
consequences, any harm to one individual can often be justified by a greater 
gain to other individuals. This is true even if the loss for the one 
individual is large and the gain for the others is marginal, as long as 
enough individuals receive the small benefit. Thus, utilitarians deny that 
individuals have inviolable moral rights. As explained above, utilitarians 
may support legal rights or rights as rules of thumb, but they are not 
considered inherent to morality. This seems problematic to many critics of 
utilitarianism, one of whom notes that according to utilitarianism there is 
"nothing intrinsically wrong with sacrificing an important individual 
interest to a greater sum of lesser interests. That assumption is retained 
in the foundations of the theory, and it remains a source of moral concern."

[Joe]
I have felt for a long time that you, Ham, do not have a workable ontology for morality. IMO value is a description of an order of existence. Wow, I can’t believe I just said that. I have always tried to keep existence pristine. In your ontology of "existence from essence-nothingness" how is anything ever destroyed in principle and therefore evil or immoral? I do not control nothingness! I do not control essence! There is no reversible choice, only non-being! I prefer an octave of levels, morality. I agree with Pirsig that if the higher level destroys a lower level it commits suicide, and if the lower level destroys the higher level evolution stops. IMO the highest two levels are only levels in consciousness. I become simply a mechanical being, when I deny an evolution of consciousness. If I deny evolution on principle????????? As an individual I am responsible for myself!

How can I empathize with SA’s description of the girl who has had her intellectual level destroyed by dogma and only has the motivation of a mechanical sex as a basis of activity? Life is exciting (sex) but each person relates to another from law (intellect) for behavior and (higher social, higher intellectual) for an enlightenment of happiness.

[Ham]
Notice the quantitative connotation of this philosophy -- "as long as enough 
individuals...", "...a greater sum of lesser interests...", etc. Clearly, 
by striving to make our decisions and actions conform to a collective 
majority, we impugn the meaning of value as proprietary sensibility. Since 
all behavioral values are represented in Nature, I find SA's moral 
imperative "being one with nature" somewhat ambiguous.

I maintain that existence is an anthropocentric reality, that value 
realization is primarily a human function. Like experience itself, all 
value is proprietary to the individual. Your likes and interests are 
self-serving, and no amount of persuasion by other individuals, no matter 
how many or how powerful, can change your values without violating your 
freedom to choose. Apart from the blind obedience demanded of monarchs and 
priests, values come into being by the psycho-emotional realization of the 
individual. Social values change only when individuals change their 
valuistic perspective of reality.

[Joe]
Your common sense seems to defy your ontology. If existence is an anthropocentric reality where does "value realization" come from? Only essence is variable and it only responds to nothingness. "Value realization" is a judgement apart from existence from essence-nothingness, or it is hard-wired and my behavior is not free, no choice!


[Ham]
I am an advocate of rational self-interest, and by "rational" I mean the 
ability to discern the value (positive or negative) in applying my chosen 
course of action to mankind at large. This has nothing to do with numbers 
or quantities of human beings. Generally it can be described in terms of the Golden Rule: Do unto others what you would want them to do to you, or as 
Kant expressed it in his Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that 
maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a 
universal law." Underlying this principle is the value rational people 
innately sense toward their fellow man.

[Joe]
Beautiful!


[Ham]
The reality we have to deal with here is that not all people are rational; 
therefore laws must be established whereby the society may legally punish, 
incarcerate or rehabilitate those who behave in an inhumane, criminal, or 
malevolent manner. This rule applies as well to the sovereign interests and 
behaviors of nations in the world community.

If this interpretation of moral values doesn't make sense, kindly tell me 
why.

Regards,
Ham


[Joe]
IMO Your ontology is incomplete, you deny freedom, a subjective awareness! Rational self-interest demands an ontology for order!

Regards 
Joe (IMO)






Hi Ron, SA, David, Marsha --


Whenever we try to apply morality to value, we run into problems.  This is 
because morality (normative ethics) is based on the 'summum bonum' principle 
of virtue as conceived by the early Greeks.  It is an attempt to quantify 
value in order to achieve what utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham called "the 
greatest good for the greatest number of people."

Here is what Wikipedia says about utilitarian morality:

"Since utilitarians judge all actions by their ability to maximize good 
consequences, any harm to one individual can often be justified by a greater 
gain to other individuals. This is true even if the loss for the one 
individual is large and the gain for the others is marginal, as long as 
enough individuals receive the small benefit. Thus, utilitarians deny that 
individuals have inviolable moral rights. As explained above, utilitarians 
may support legal rights or rights as rules of thumb, but they are not 
considered inherent to morality. This seems problematic to many critics of 
utilitarianism, one of whom notes that according to utilitarianism there is 
"nothing intrinsically wrong with sacrificing an important individual 
interest to a greater sum of lesser interests. That assumption is retained 
in the foundations of the theory, and it remains a source of moral concern."

Notice the quantitative connotation of this philosophy -- "as long as enough 
individuals...", "...a greater sum of lesser interests...", etc.   Clearly, 
by striving to make our decisions and actions conform to a collective 
majority, we impugn the meaning of value as proprietary sensibility.  Since 
all behavioral values are represented in Nature, I find SA's moral 
imperative "being one with nature" somewhat ambiguous.

I maintain that existence is an anthropocentric reality, that value 
realization is primarily a human function.  Like experience itself, all 
value is proprietary to the individual.  Your likes and interests are 
self-serving, and no amount of persuasion by other individuals, no matter 
how many or how powerful, can change your values without violating your 
freedom to choose.  Apart from the blind obedience demanded of monarchs and 
priests, values come into being by the psycho-emotional realization of the 
individual.  Social values change only when individuals change their 
valuistic perspective of reality.

I am an advocate of rational self-interest, and by "rational" I mean the 
ability to discern the value (positive or negative) in applying my chosen 
course of action to mankind at large.  This has nothing to do with numbers 
or quantities of human beings.  Generally it can be described in terms of 
the Golden Rule: Do unto others what you would want them to do to you, or as 
Kant expressed it in his Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that 
maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a 
universal law."  Underlying this principle is the value rational people 
innately sense toward their fellow man.

The reality we have to deal with here is that not all people are rational; 
therefore laws must be established whereby the society may legally punish, 
incarcerate or rehabilitate those who behave in an inhumane, criminal, or 
malevolent manner.  This rule applies as well to the sovereign interests and 
behaviors of nations in the world community.

If this interpretation of moral values doesn't make sense, kindly tell me 
why.

Regards,
Ham


Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/