Political Philosophy and Ethics discussion
Ethics
>
Human Ethics: Basis, Principles, Applications
date
newest »
newest »
message 201:
by
Alan, Founding Moderator and Author
(new)
Jul 08, 2022 10:26PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Mod
Today, I posted the following on Academia.edu: “Excerpts from Reason and Human Ethics by Alan E. Johnson” (https://www.academia.edu/82835731/Exc...). The front matter (excerpts), Chapter 1 ("What Is the Basis of Human Ethics?"), and Chapter 2 ("Human Reason") of Reason and Human Ethics were included in this public post. Chapters 3 ("Individual Ethics"), 4 ("Social Ethics"), 5 ("Citizen and Media Ethics") 6 ("Political Ethics"), and the Appendix ("Conflicts among the Claims to Revelation") were not included.
I also deleted previous papers on Academia.edu that constituted excerpts from earlier drafts of this book.
Mod
Mod
For discussions of technology and human ethics, do a word search for “technology” in the search box at the upper right portion of this webpage.
Mod
On October 19, 2022, I gave a virtual lecture, followed by a Q&A session, on my recently published book Reason and Human Ethics. The lecture is about 52 minutes, and the Q&A session is about 46 minutes. This was the monthly lecture of the Pittsburgh Freethought Community, and the recording of it can be freely accessed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3wpZ....
I am cross-filing this comment in the “Video Presentations by Alan E. Johnson regarding Ethical and Political Philosophy” topic of this Goodreads group.
Alan E. Johnson
Independent Philosopher, Historian, Political Scientist, and Legal Scholar
Mod
I discuss the question of the life of reason versus the life of passion in my book Reason and Human Ethics, especially Chapter 2 (“Human Reason”), which is posted online at https://www.academia.edu/82835731/Exc....
Political philosopher Thomas Pangle recently posted an essay titled “The Life of Wisdom: Rousseau vs Socrates” at https://www.academia.edu/91657830/The.... He contrasts the life of reason, exemplified by Socrates, with the life of passion, exemplified by Rousseau. This is an excellent analysis, which I highly recommend. My only question is his discussion of Socrates's statements about his daimonion. I have always thought that these statements were exoteric, a position with which Pangle may or may not agree. I have posed that question to him in an Academia discussion. If he responds, I will update the present comment.
December 6, 2022 Note:
Alan wrote: Political philosopher Thomas Pangle recently posted an essay titled “The Life of Wisdom: Rousseau vs Socrates” at https://www.academia.edu/91657830/The.... He contrasts the life of reason, exemplified by Socrates, with the life of passion, exemplified by Rousseau. This is an excellent analysis, which I highly recommend. My only question is his discussion of Socrates's statements about his daimonion. I have always thought that these statements were exoteric, a position with which Pangle may or may not agree. I have posed that question to him in an Academia discussion. If he responds, I will update the present comment."
Professor Pangle responded today as follows: “I don't think the statements about his daimonion are simply exoteric, though that is one dimension of them. They point to the fundamental problem or question, which is one of interpreting crucial spiritual experiences.” I’m not sure what Pangle means by this, but I am not pursuing it further in the Academia discussion.
I am cross-filing the foregoing in the following topics of this Goodreads group: “Reason, Informal Logic, Evidence, and Critical Thinking,” “Human Ethics: Basis, Principles, Applications,” “Ethical Philosophy of Socrates and Plato,” “Plato,” “Rousseau,” and “Leo Strauss and the ‘Straussians’.”
Mod
I have now posted online the Appendix (“Conflicts among the Claims to Revelation”) of my book Reason and Human Ethics: https://www.academia.edu/91814056/Con.... This Appendix supplements the discussion of the question of religion as the basis for human ethics on pages 9–13 of the book. Those pages are part of Chapter 1 (“What Is the Basis of Human Ethics?”), which, along with Chapter 2 (“Human Reason”) and some front matter, are reproduced online at https://www.academia.edu/82835731/Exc....
I am filing the present post in both the “Human Ethics: Basis, Principles, Applications” and “Publications of Group Members on Philosophical, Historical, or Legal Topics” topics of this Goodreads group.
Mod
There is a discussion at Academia.edu (https://www.academia.edu/s/e853d30dbc) of my books Reason and Human Ethics and Free Will and Human Life. You are welcome to join and, if you wish, comment in this discussion. Although the opportunity to comment will close in thirteen days, the entire discussion should remain visible thereafter.
I am posting the present comment in the “Human Ethics: Basis, Principles, Applications” and “Free Will” topics of this Goodreads group.
Mod
I have created a list of the best books on a rational approach to ethics at https://shepherd.com/best-books/a-rat....
Thanks for the ethics reading list. Yours I have, and have dog-eared pages of Plato and Aristotle but am grateful for the Foot and Goldberg references: my impossible reading list grows apace!
Mod
You're welcome. I also have many, many books on my "to read" and even my "owned but not yet read" lists. As my mother used to tell me (in another context, of course), my eyes are bigger than my stomach!
Mod
I have posted updated errata and a supplemental comment to my book Reason and Human Ethics at https://www.academia.edu/88227217/Err....
(edited May 29, 2023)
Mod
I have now uploaded an exact replica of the entirety of the paperback edition of my book Reason and Human Ethics at https://www.academia.edu/107899091/Re.... This is freely accessible to all. As it is in PDF format, it is not as convenient as the Kindle or paperback editions (https://www.amazon.com/Reason-Human-E...) with regard to toggling back and forth between the text and the endnotes, but the whole book is there for those who are interested in perusing all or part it.
I am currently preparing my final book, titled Reason and Human Government, but that book will probably not be published until 2–4 years from now (perhaps later).
Alan E. Johnson
Independent Philosopher, Historian, Political Scientist, and Legal Scholar
Mod
On pages 52–54 of my book Free Will and Human Life (a PDF replica of which is online at https://www.academia.edu/108171849/Al...) and pages 65–67 of my book Reason and Human Ethics (a PDF replica of which is online at https://www.academia.edu/107899091/Re...), I discuss the importance of good ethical habituation in the education and training of children and adolescents, following up on a point that Aristotle made in his Nicomachean Ethics. I also discussed the reality of negative habitation in some young people and adults and queried whether such negative habituation could be overcome.
Aristotle, of course, knew nothing about present-day neuroscience, but modern neuroscience actually supports Aristotle's views on ethical habituation. Consider, for example, the following excerpt from neurogeneticist Kevin J. Mitchell’s recent book Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will:
Each time the organism chooses an action, there is an opportunity for reinforcement learning to occur: each becomes a teachable moment. The more salient the outcome, the stronger the resultant changes in neural connections and the bigger the effect on subsequent behavior. Over time, if an action turns out to be a reliably positive thing to do, it may become so strongly reinforced that it becomes a habit—both of thought and of execution. In fact, it may become so automatic that simply the recognition of a situation may trigger the behavior, without any conscious thought having to be given to the goal or to other options for behavior in that context.I am only about half-way through Mitchell’s book and have not yet reached the chapters in which he addresses the issue of free will in depth. See the Goodreads and Amazon descriptions of the book for further information about his position on free will.
We tend to think of habits as bad things, but really they are tremendously useful shortcuts that enable animals, including us, to navigate familiar settings and scenarios in adaptive ways with a minimum of cognitive effort and time expended on deliberation. We’ve done all the hard work of thinking about this already, so why do it again? Our brains know how things are going to turn out, broadly speaking, if we behave in tried-and-true ways in most of our everyday contexts. People are sometimes asked, “If you could go back in time and give your younger self some advice, what would it be?” In reality, what happens is precisely the opposite: our past selves are giving advice to our present self all the time to ensure it has the best possible future.
To summarize, these extended brain systems, involving circuits within and between the cortex, hippocampus, hypothalamus, thalamus, basal ganglia, midbrain nuclei, motor command centers, and other regions, collectively mediate these diverse and integrated processes of behavioral control. These processes enable the animal to identify and assess the situation, monitor current needs and prioritize different goals, conceive of possible actions, select among them, and learn from their outcomes to inform the process in the future. These capabilities let animals further decouple perception from obligatory action, test out possibilities in their heads before risking them in the real world, and recruit their whole historical selves in the service of making optimal decisions.
Along our own lineage, the progressive expansion of the forebrain, in particular of the cerebral cortex, allowed animals like to us to increasingly internalize these processes—generating additional levels of the hierarchy for learning and planning over longer timeframes. As we will see in later chapters, this eventually resulted in the capabilities of introspection and metacognition, through which our own goals and drives and ideas become not just the elements but also the objects of cognition. In this way, mammals, primates, and eventually humans developed more and more layers of insulation from the exigencies of the environment and greater and greater autonomy as causal agents in their own right. (Kevin J. Mitchell, Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2023], 141–43, Kindle)
I am cross-filing this post in the “Human Ethics: Basis, Principles, Applications,” “Neuroscience, Evolutionary Biology, and Ethics,” and “Ethical Philosophy of Aristotle” topics of the “Ethics” folder of this Goodreads group.
Mod
The following excerpt from pages 240–41 of the Kindle edition of Kevin J. Mitchell’s Free Agents How Evolution Gave Us Free Will (Princeton University Press, 2023) is on point:
In addition to pro- or antisocial aspects, the other main theme among character traits is one of self-control, as exemplified by patience, prudence, temperance, foresight, and perseverance. These traits represent the triumph of rationality over more basic drives (a capacity that may underpin more overtly prosocial behaviors). Rationality has been recognized from the time of Plato and Aristotle as a defining capacity of humans, elevating us above the beasts. . . .I am cross-filing the present post in the “Reason, Informal Logic, Evidence, and Critical Thinking” and “Human Ethics: Basis, Principles, Applications” folders of this Goodreads group.
This capacity needs to be actively developed. Indeed, a defining aspect of all character traits is that they do not solely reflect innate endowments. Individual differences in personality may certainly have an influence on them, but they represent mature habits and skills and practices more than just predispositions. The (perhaps apocryphal) ancient Taoist figure Lao Tzu is quoted as saying, “Watch your actions; they become habit. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.”
Mod
Although it is perhaps obvious, the following statement by neurogeneticist Kevin J. Mitchell aptly sums up the development of reason in an individual as follows:
The most obvious variation in the faculties of self-control is seen across the lifespan. Babies are clearly not born able to use reason to control their behavior: they are entirely driven by their basic physiological urges (or, more accurately, their parents are). It doesn’t take that long for infants and children to start engaging in something you could call reasoning, but the ability to behave rationally—to control their urges, inhibit their impulses, and regulate their emotions—takes years to develop. It typically involves a lot of explicit instruction and reinforcement by parents, teachers, and other caregivers, as well as learning from peers. (Robert J. Mitchell, Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will [Princeton University Press, 2023], 268–69, Kindle)
Mod
From Saturday, April 27, 2024, through Wednesday, May 1, 2024, the Kindle edition of my book Reason and Human Ethics can be downloaded for free at https://www.amazon.com/Reason-Human-E....
Reason and Human Ethics (2022) argues that a secular, biological, teleological basis of human ethics exists and that reasoning and critical thinking about both ends and means are essential to human ethics. It examines how these principles apply in the contexts of individual ethics, social ethics, citizen ethics, media ethics, and political ethics.
Alan E. Johnson
Independent Philosopher, Historian, Political Scientist, and Legal Scholar
Mod
I have posted my paper “Proposals for Education in Rational and Ethical Thinking” at https://www.academia.edu/122128491/PR....
Abstract: In this era of widespread irrationality and violence, it is clear that traditional methods of moral indoctrination are failing. This paper proposes a new approach to ethical instruction based on proper reasoning about both ends and means.
I am cross-filing the present post in some other topics of this Goodreads group.
Mod
This book is available in both Kindle and paperback editions at https://www.amazon.com/Reason-Human-E.... An exact PDF replica of the paperback edition is also freely accessible and downloadable at https://www.academia.edu/107899091/Re....
The errata and supplemental comment for this book can be accessed at https://www.academia.edu/88227217/Err.... All of these errata have been corrected in paperbacks printed after December 19, 2024. (I use a print-on-demand service, wherein such corrections can be easily accomplished). However, except as noted, the errata have not been corrected in the Kindle edition, which is more difficult and expensive to update. That said, these errata (typos) are quite minor and probably would not even be noticeable by most readers.
Alan E. Johnson
Independent Philosopher, Historian, Political Scientist, and Legal Scholar
Alan wrote: "Gerard wrote: "With regards the morals versus ethics discussion, there doesn't seem to be any real agreement on standard definitions against each other."I plan to discuss this in some depth in my..."
The distinction between ethics and morality is a topic of ongoing debate in philosophy, and your differentiation aligns with common interpretations. Ethics is often seen as a framework of principles or guidelines established by a society or group to regulate collective behavior, ensuring harmony and well-being in social interactions. Examples include professional codes of conduct or laws that dictate acceptable behavior within a community. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics underscores this, tying ethical behavior to virtues cultivated within a community context, aimed at achieving eudaimonia or flourishing.
Moral principles, on the other hand, are typically viewed as individual and internalized, reflecting personal beliefs about right and wrong. These principles might be influenced by cultural, religious, or experiential factors but ultimately guide personal decision-making. Kant’s concept of the categorical imperative illustrates a universal moral law derived from rationality, independent of societal norms.
Given these perspectives, I propose a nuanced integration:
Ethics can be understood as the external application of behavior within a societal framework, where collective norms govern interactions.
Morality acts as the individual compass, rooted in personal values, which individuals use to engage ethically with society.
In essence, moral principles serve as the foundation for ethical actions, functioning as the internalized tools through which individuals contribute to a collective ethical framework. This distinction could enrich discussions and clarify the interplay between personal and societal responsibilities.
Alan wrote: "Gerard wrote: "With regards the morals versus ethics discussion, there doesn't seem to be any real agreement on standard definitions against each other."I plan to discuss this in some depth in my..."
The distinction between ethics and morality is a topic of ongoing debate in philosophy, and your differentiation aligns with common interpretations. Ethics is often seen as a framework of principles or guidelines established by a society or group to regulate collective behavior, ensuring harmony and well-being in social interactions. Examples include professional codes of conduct or laws that dictate acceptable behavior within a community. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics underscores this, tying ethical behavior to virtues cultivated within a community context, aimed at achieving eudaimonia or flourishing.
Moral principles, on the other hand, are typically viewed as individual and internalized, reflecting personal beliefs about right and wrong. These principles might be influenced by cultural, religious, or experiential factors but ultimately guide personal decision-making. Kant’s concept of the categorical imperative illustrates a universal moral law derived from rationality, independent of societal norms.
Given these perspectives, I propose a nuanced integration:
Ethics can be understood as the external application of behavior within a societal framework, where collective norms govern interactions.
Morality acts as the individual compass, rooted in personal values, which individuals use to engage ethically with society.
In essence, moral principles serve as the foundation for ethical actions, functioning as the internalized tools through which individuals contribute to a collective ethical framework. This distinction could enrich discussions and clarify the interplay between personal and societal responsibilities.
Mod
These two posts appear to be identical. In any event, as a result of changed Goodreads notification procedures, I didn’t receive notifications of either of them until I noticed them while scrolling through the topics today.
I disagree with Ricardo’s analysis and classifications. For my analysis, see my book Reason and Human Ethics (a PDF replica of which is online at https://www.academia.edu/107899091/Re...), which (as we US lawyers [retired in my case] say) is incorporated herein by reference as if fully rewritten.
Ricardo: I was unable to locate the post to which your preceding two posts were responding. In the future, please comply with posts 45 (https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...) and/or 46 of the Rules and Housekeeping topic of this Goodreads group. Both of these posts are dated July 23, 2022.
I am currently reading your book Global Disorder, along with several others, while at the same time writing my forthcoming book Reason and Human Government. I am about one-third of the way through your book. I will probably finish it sometime within the next few weeks.
Mod
The foregoing is the title of the following December 29, 2024 New York Times gift article about the passing of Jimmy Carter: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/29/yo....
Mod
The foregoing is the title of this July 8, 2025 essay by David Brooks in The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arc.... (This should be a gift article. If you hit a paywall, please let me know.)
I agree with much of what Brooks says in this essay, especially with his conclusion. My own views are elaborated in my books Free Will and Human Life and Reason and Human Ethics (https://www.academia.edu/107899091/Re...).
Alan E. Johnson
Independent Philosopher, Historian, Political Scientist, and Legal Scholar
Mod
This is the title of an August 14, 2023 article in The Atlantic, which that magazine has just now reposted online at https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/... (gift article). The author is David Brooks, with whom I agree some of the time and disagree at other times. I don’t necessarily agree with every detail of this article, but it is, overall, an excellent analysis of our current ethical situation and how it has changed over the centuries and decades. Although Brooks eschews priggish moralism, he shows how an appropriately conceived ethical perspective can improve our society and, indeed, the world at large—not to mention ourselves. I covered some of the same themes in my 2022 book Reason and Human Ethics (https://www.amazon.com/Reason-Human-E...).
Alan E. Johnson
Independent Philosopher, Historian, Political Scientist, and Legal Scholar
Mod
See Carlos van Hamme’s September 2005 paper “The Is-Ought Category Error: How Life Necessarily Generates Purpose Through Constitutive Normativity,” https://www.academia.edu/144009322/Th.... This essay expresses, in academic terms, some of the same principles and concepts that I discuss in plain language in my books Free Will and Human Life (https://www.academia.edu/108171849/Al...) and Reason and Human Ethics (https://www.academia.edu/107899091/Re...), though he develops and applies them in some ways that had not occurred to me. As I complete the final book, Reason and Human Government, of my philosophical trilogy on free will, ethics, and political philosophy, I don’t have time right now to ascertain whether I disagree with any of his analysis, but I do recommend this paper for those interested in these questions.
Alan E. Johnson
Independent Philosopher, Historian, Political Scientist, and Legal Scholar
