A hierarchy of ethics?

[Amorphos]

A hierarchy of ethics?

Of late I am wondering if rather than just having a set of ethics, that there is in fact a hierarchy of ethics. For example we can make good arguments for anti abortion, anti porn, andti war etc, etc. yet with most or all ethics we have to compare the moral stance with real world situations, whereby they sometimes fail to recognise the peculiars of a given case.

If you had an ethic tree what would be at the top for you?

For me the highest ethic is that of ‘the greater dynamic’, as life produces a rich tapestry of different types of people and situations, I think it is better that it has all its good and bad points, or at least where they are beneficial to the ethic. In fact invention and inspiration relies on such difference, and it is that by which we grow.

Thoughts?

[Bovril]

Real world ethical stuations are subject to such conditions as partial knowledge, partial predictive power and personal perspective altering cognition (through psychological mechanisms such as cognitive disonance, memory schema and the confirmation bias). This implies that ethical judgements are all at best best guesses.

None the less, yes, everyone has a hierachy of values of sorts. For example, almost everyone values their mother's life over whcih colour smartie they select from a tube.

However, I suspect you are getting at something far more profound. For example, in the 19th century, many ideas about statecraft appeared. Utilitarians espoused the gretest good for the greatest number (then set about a respective justification of a liberal version of current power relations in this context). The late Marx believed most actions were justifieable if they promoted history's teliology as he saw it. Hegel thought the state was the greatest expression of justice on earth, and that it was contrary to the divine will to oppose it, and that the state guaranteed genuine freedom. Anarchists such as Bakunin argued that all coercion is unjustifiable except in such cases as it can be demonstrated to explicitly and directly serve the coerced (grabing some one's arm as they walk into the path of a car) or prevent them coercing others (e.g. stopping a capitalist enforcing control of a factory). They also refused to seperate means from ends. No major theorists, but many powerful and/or popular figures argued that the key feature of justice was ownership of capital, and that this right should be absolutely respected.

These are all systems of meta-ethics, and they all conflict with one another. Creating a hierachy of values is impossible. Some tendencies can be used (e.g. the Talmudic quote "whoever destroys a single soul, he is guilty as though he had destroyed a complete world; and whoever preserves a single soul, it is as though he had preserved a whole world.") but they are not absolutes. I'm afraid any actually existing absolute moral hierachy would either be too vague to function or horrifically arbitrary.

[Denny Crane!]

You familiar with Maslows work Quez? Not related at first glance but whatever basis or heirarchy I form does seem to bear some resemblance or correlative effect.

[godol shmok]

Only having gone superficially over wiki Maslow's hierarchy of needs, I ask me what kind of ethics would be required to describe the situation/states of the need in relation to a subject. Does Maslow mean that these are dynamic relations that can have this or that outcome or does he mean they are progressive and demand that only if situation A is realized then B is open for a decision between this and that? It appears to me that while the hierarchy of needs may imply a certain progressive structure, that ethical sentences describing possible situations of decisions would probably remain bound to the actual case of a situational decision because the step from one state to another state of need is by itself not guided by a moral principle, although it may open up the access to new possible situations where it can come to decisions between goods. - Just a thought and maybe not very smart as I haven't read Maslow.

[Denny Crane!]

Only having gone superficially over wiki Maslow's hierarchy of needs, I ask me what kind of ethics would be required to describe the situation/states of the need in relation to a subject. Does Maslow mean that these are dynamic relations that can have this or that outcome or does he mean they are progressive and demand that only if situation A is realized then B is open for a decision between this and that? It appears to me that while the hierarchy of needs may imply a certain progressive structure, that ethical sentences describing possible situations of decisions would probably remain bound to the actual case of a situational decision because the step from one state to another state of need is by itself not guided by a moral principle, although it may open up the access to new possible situations where it can come to decisions between goods. - Just a thought and maybe not very smart as I haven't read Maslow.

It is just practical. If the most basic needs aren't satisfied it has been proved time and time again that order breaks down and peoples ability to make ethical decisions break down. The adage coined by Terry Pratchett is surprisingly true even if it was meant in humour. Civilisation is three hot meals away from anarchy.

Does this mean that I think ethics and morality are rooted in self interest, and come from primary drives and impulses. You betcha. In the absence of a supernatural deity it is the only place they can come from. As each need is realised the ability and desire to become ethical becomes more complex.

[godol shmok]

Then* the question could be brought up, where ethical complexity comes from because one would think that when the needs articulate themselves in steps, that their degree of need-generated complexity would overall remain constant - at least that is what a step model would imply, a gradual rise to a peak, an interupt and a gradual rise etc. Another question would be for me which form of language I would have to use to describe the ethical in contrast to the self-interest (the need). Would I use the same typ of affirmations? If not, would I still have a coherent system of description or would it make sense to distribute the statements on two only loosely (how far) related chapters.

*in case of Maslow allowing true ethcial interpretations what we assume here

[Denny Crane!]

Then* the question could be brought up, where ethical complexity comes from because one would think that when the needs articulate themselves in steps, that their degree of need-generated complexity would overall remain constant - at least that is what a step model would imply, a gradual rise to a peak, an interupt and a gradual rise etc. Another question would be for me which form of language I would have to use to describe the ethical in contrast to the self-interest (the need). Would I use the same typ of affirmations? If not, would I still have a coherent system of description or would it make sense to distribute the statements on two only loosely (how far) related chapters.

*in case of Maslow allowing true ethcial interpretations what we assume here

I'll give a more full reply later as I am due at work so for now I will leave this, as our psychological needs become more complex so then must our ethical concerns. Morality and ethics are rooted in reciprocity, you are incapable of reciprocating with someone whose needs are met consistently if your most basic needs are not met.

[godol shmok]

My formulation was a bit awkward and badly imitating a certain style. When you say needs and concerns then it rather well fits into what I have been out for because n~c describes a modal relation (if n then so must c). The concern would more be than an affirmation of a need but a reflexion of a concern on the need.

[Ummon]

A modest revision proposal.

http://www.cs.uml.edu/~cchen/3d/GIS08.pdf

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0279151.html

http://www.mathematische-basteleien....etrahedron.htm

http://academic.evergreen.edu/curric...Workseheet.pdf

[godol shmok]

You must be in a good mood and ready for prank.

Moral questions à la Baruch Spinoza ...

[Ummon]

Well, you see, there must be a way to overlap the layers, mustn't it?

Hypertetrahedron, hmm.

This posing that we do not add a sixth need. But it is not us to add it.

[godol shmok]

Ok, you think even if we are in the realm of natural languages. And Frege? - not a very original objection I confess.

[Ummon]

A concept script does appear only in the two-dimensional sheet. Shadows are thin.

[godol shmok]

Is concept script bound to two dimensions? As a light metaphor sure - and the Maslow diagram refers to class terms which do not say much about the content of the class. The ethical side must be invisible then.

[Ummon]

The needs Maslow underlines, are as we know, just a scientific-jargon-covered reproduction of older concepts. The relationships between the layers are of course meta-stable, yet, an idealistic person will at times pose the upper layer above the basic ones, for example.

Certain needs can be satiated by discipline as well as pursuit of stimuli. But returning to the example, in certain situations, the idealist is a fool, in others a saint.

Because the sheet appears to have rotating images, yet nothing ever wheels if not in the mind, and the mind wheels in spacetime.

[godol shmok]

I must have been blind. The Maslow hierarchy contains a doctrine of virtues.

I can only agree with what you say.

I understand your reservation vis-à-vis the analysis of diagrams.

[Ummon]

Not blind I think, merely spending your attention on other issues. We all have just that span more or less, and only One looks in all directions.

[godol shmok]

Yea, distraction and Excel 2007 ...

[Amorphos]

Bovril

This implies that ethical judgements are all at best best guesses.

For sure, though the point I am making is that even if you accept given morals, you still have to compare them to a greater moral. Though some people may just have a set of morals with no hierarchy e.g. ten commandments, or non-attachment etc.

Hegel thought the state was the greatest expression of justice on earth

Yuk, what a horrible thought , goes directly against my higher ethic [as in OP]. the state is a freedom for itself over individuals which essentially means no individual has any say over it, in a society of individuals such an abstract should surely serve what it seeks to control?

and that it was contrary to the divine will to oppose it

I never understand why philosophers say things like that, firstly they presume there is a divine will, then that it seeks to have power over all others with no evidence thereof [that it would seek to do so].

Anarchists such as Bakunin argued that all coercion is unjustifiable except in such cases as it can be demonstrated to explicitly and directly serve the coerced

So the logic goes that one may coerce the coerced, thing is teamwork is a kind of agreed upon acceptance of coercion. If freedom is non interactive then it exists in a bubble and denies its universal version.

Denny crane and godol shmok

You familiar with Maslows work Quez?

Not really, though it sounds sadly familiar.

Does this mean that I think ethics and morality are rooted in self interest, and come from primary drives and impulses. You betcha. In the absence of a supernatural deity it is the only place they can come from. As each need is realised the ability and desire to become ethical becomes more complex.

Why cant ethics come from selflessness, the desire to genuinely help others or the understanding that we don’t exist? Self interest depends upon there being a self yes. If we imagine that most people don’t agree with that and think the self does exist, many or most also believe that there is something that equates to the greater purpose. I think all self’s are aware of their comparative punyness.

The entire pyramid seams to be reliant upon a series of crutches, it is also a hierarchal system formed around the self and not around universals which form the environment of the self. It at least needs both or is lacking?

..just reading the other posts...

[Ummon]

Why cant ethics come from selflessness, the desire to genuinely help others or the understanding that we don’t exist?

Because selflessness doesn't exist in nature, the desire to help others must be balanced with the desire to help oneself, since you cannot give what you don't possess, and things which do not exist do not have thoughts.