On the Nature of Value (axiology)
 
Do we need to value and is value a limited thing humans have or simply create? Is value a thing we find or a thing we add, can we avoid value? Are we too close to value to be able to evaluate value? Is the problem with value is that humans are nearly inseparable from value? But suppose we gather distance, what would we see— would we find that all value is contingent on the one observing it?
Multi-modality of morality, or Nonlinear moral reasoning, is not the norm or usually not happening in repeated sets of moral reasoning. Because when looking at a group of exhibited moral choices, there is a standard line of similar moral reasoning to some extent, even if unacknowledged. This argument seems to hold support because if not adhering to a liner moral reasoning of some kind, ones moral behavior would unpredictably fluctuate, though most do not or not much, thus exhibiting a standard even if its a multi-modality. I in fact intentionally employ a multi-modality approach to moral reasoning and thus moral behavior.
 
To me, I feel all cognitive aware being have or set value and values not only humans. But then we can say that this is a part of our basic needs? Value does not seem to be something that we can avoid any more than others basic needs; unless of course, we have stopped valuing our continued success, well-being or existence. But to stop valuing seems to me to actually still apply a value of or to nonvalue. Thus, as I see it we are still in some way bound in the realm of value or choosing to disregard or deny value, which to me still seems to be either bound by a presupposition of there being a state of value of some amount or kind. The fact that we have a hierarchy of needs that is limited to man, animals or even living things in general to some extent that to me has not removed the process or property of value. As in just because dirt can not value is meaningless as it has not needs either and this awareness tell nothing to the reality that life does have some amount of basic needs.
If one said vision is limited to only beings who have eyes that are operating to the capacity required to establish sight what does this mean? Can it be said the visually able are forging there own perception in that act of seeing that is limited to the seer? Sight it could be said is not discovered but created. Would this mean vision only has authority insofar as the vision seer gives it authority over the vision limited or vision devoid?is the fact that one who sees must give vision authority some kind of proof that vision has no authority outside of the seer.
 
Is it right to preclude some or possibly all authority of vision is itself set in place by the viewer? Would this mean the vision authority is that it affirms viewer? Relating this thinking back to value, is it that humans desire or have the ability to actualize there needs (ie have sight), hence value and that human values specifically are the creators of value authority, just as the one with sight gives seeing its authority? Can we avoid the benefits of sight can we avoid the benefits of value in not only assessing our needs but in there more constructive acquisition? And, this hierarchy of needs to survive and thrive to me seems especially or possibly exclusively tied to or holds some unavoidable imperative or necessary drive, ie. need to value which confirms its authority.

If axiology is a value-based ethics system, how are the ethical values established?


Using Axiological Awareness to Assist in Argumentation.

I hear some saying that the universe does not care and thus no one matters. However, the universe is not aware to make any thought or judgment of any kind. Just as a tree or rock, not understanding love does nothing to devalue love. Therefore, the universe not caring about humans is an invalid argument because it cannot be said to assess humans’ value. Because of this fact, it is disqualified to provide any valid rebuke of value or what matters. Let me make this clearer, the universe can make no assessment at all and this means nothing to the truth status of anything, such as I could say the universe does not know I exist but that expresses nothing about me existing or not.

Axiology is both a philosophy and a science of value.
Value to axiology, is how you make an assessment of what is good, invaluable, worth, helpful or moral and what is bad, unvalued unworthy, harmful, or immoral. Axiology can be thought of being an alternate title: theory of value. Axiology, (from Greek axios, “worthy”; logos, “science”), also called the philosophical study of goodness, or value, in the widest sense of these terms. Its significance lies (1) in the considerable expansion that it has given to the meaning of the term value and (2) in the unification that it has provided for the study of a variety of questions—economic, moral, aesthetic, and even logical—that had often been considered in relative isolation. The term “value” originally meant the worth of something, chiefly in the economic sense of exchange value, as in the work of the 18th-century political economist Adam Smith. A broad extension of the meaning of value to wider areas of philosophical interest occurred during the 19th century under the influence of a variety of thinkers and schools. Because “fact” symbolizes objectivity and “value” suggests subjectivity, the relationship of value to a fact is of fundamental importance in developing any theory of the objectivity of value and of value judgments. Whereas such descriptive sciences as sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc. all attempt to give a factual description of what is actually valued, as well as causal explanations of similarities and differences between the valuations, it remains the philosopher’s task to ask about their objective validity.  (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-theory/) – Value Theory (axiology) – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Damien, I understand that axiology is a value-based ethics system, by I don’t understand why the values are what they are?

Why is life > nonlife?
Why are humans > nonhumans?
Why are family members > strangers?

If it is a logical system, the reasons for the values must be logically validated, not just presumed.


The logico-deductive method whereby conclusions (new knowledge) follow from premises (old knowledge) through the application of sound arguments (syllogisms, rules of inference), was developed by the ancient Greeks, and has become the core principle of modern mathematics.

“A logical system or, for short, logic, is a formal system together with a form of semantics, usually in the form of model-theoretic interpretation, which assigns truth values to sentences of the formal language, that is, formulae that contain no free variables. A formal system or logical calculus is any well-defined system of abstract thought based on the model of mathematics. A formal system need not be mathematical as such; for example, Spinoza’s Ethics imitates the form of Euclid’s Elements. Spinoza employed Euclidiean elements such as “axioms” or “primitive truths“, rules of inferences, etc., so that a calculus can be built using these. An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question. As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning. As used in mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: “logical axioms” and “non-logical axioms”. Logical axioms are usually statements that are taken to be true within the system of logic they define.  To axiomatize a system of knowledge is to show that its claims can be derived from a small, well-understood set of sentences (the axioms). The word axiom comes from the Greek word ἀξίωμα (axíōma), a verbal noun from the verb ἀξιόειν (axioein), meaning “to deem worthy”, but also “to require”, which in turn comes from ἄξιος (áxios), meaning “being in balance”, and hence “having (the same) value (as)”, “worthy”, “proper”. Among the ancient Greek philosophers an axiom was a claim which could be seen to be true without any need for proof. A logic is sound if all sentences that can be derived are true in the interpretation, and complete if, conversely, all true sentences can be derived. Deductive inference: deductive system, also called a deductive apparatus, consists of the axioms (or axiom schemata) and rules of inference that can be used to derive theorems of the system. Such deductive systems preserve deductive qualities in the formulas that are expressed in the system. Usually, the quality we are concerned with is truth as opposed to falsehood. However, other modalities, such as justification or belief may be preserved instead. In order to sustain its deductive integrity, a deductive apparatus must be definable without reference to any intended interpretation of the language. The aim is to ensure that each line of a derivation is merely a syntactic consequence of the lines that precede it. There should be no element of any interpretation of the language that gets involved with the deductive nature of the system.” refref


“Distinctions between theories of moral reasoning can be accounted for by evaluating inferences (which tend to be either deductive or inductive) based on a given set of premises. Deductive inference reaches a conclusion that is true based on whether a given set of premises preceding the conclusion are also true, whereas, inductive inference goes beyond the information given in a set of premises to base the conclusion on provoked reflection. This branch of psychology is concerned with how these issues are perceived by ordinary people, and so is the foundation of descriptive ethics. There are many different moral reasonings. Moral reasoning is culturally defined, and thus is difficult to apply, yet human relationships define our existence and thus defy cultural boundaries.” ref

My response, there are several approaches to addressing this set of questions and will be approached or addressed differently from different axiology styles and there are several but two main philosophical with value theory (philosophic axiology) or with formal axiology (scientific axiology). I am a philosophical axiologist not a formal axiologist just so you know. Also, I do not speak for other philosophical axiologists only my self.

“The term “Value Theory” is used in at least three different ways in philosophy. In its broadest sense, “Value Theory” is a catch-all label used to encompass all branches of moral philosophy, social and political philosophy, aesthetics, and sometimes feminist philosophy and the philosophy of religion — whatever areas of philosophy are deemed to encompass some “evaluative” aspect. In its narrowest sense, “value theory” is used for a relatively narrow area of normative ethical theory particularly, but not exclusively, of concern to consequentialists. In this narrow sense, “value theory” is roughly synonymous with “axiology”. Axiology can be thought of as primarily concerned with classifying what things are good, and how good they are. For instance, a traditional question of axiology concerns whether the objects of value are subjective psychological states, or objective states of the world.” ref

Real Morality, to me, is referring to “ethics (our interactions with others not morals that one holds them self too)” morality motivation and ethical behavior, with our moral/ethical reasoningmoral judgment, we use in judging the behaviors in a social dynamic behavioral event or interaction and can only accrue in a social dynamic (social behavioral realm) as such all morality propositions removed from a social dynamic and which accrue only in a personal dynamic lack attachment to “Real Morality” referring to the social nature of “ethics.” A moral choice can involve some ethical code, or regulated by ethical relationships with others, this can be stem from many morality motivations or sensitivities. In other words, if you are by yourself and do something only to yourself, it is neither ethical nor immorality; thus, doing a behavior that is only personal (a believed moral or otherwise) by yourself and only something to yourself, is amorality to everyone but that chosen person doing a behavior that is only personal. I hold the assumptions that to understand morality more fully we need to understand its synthesis and properties by emphasizing its relations to conceptual tools understanding motivation and behaviour such as Biopsychosocial modelMaslow’s hierarchy of needsBronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems TheoryLawrence Kohlberg’s moral development theory and Formal Axiology interactions across multiple levels. Real Morality is an emergent aspect limited to a sphere of social dynamics (social) result in human progress and social evolution understood in mental processes of high cognitively developed beings (biological) with developed psychological quality of awareness (psychological) and the so-called moral facts and the values that support or motivate them is limited to the realm of possible harm psychological or physical (actual external world or experiential internal world).

My Axiological Dignity Being Theory: An “Axiological assessment of human beings” shows with an axiological awareness a logic of values is clear which takes as its basic premise that “all persons always deserve positive regard.” – Progressive Logicby William J. Kelleher, Ph.D. And the reason why we should care is that we are Dignity Beings. “Dignity is an internal state of peace that comes with the recognition and acceptance of the value and vulnerability of all living things.” – Donna Hicks (2011). Dignity: Its Essential Role in Resolving Conflict

*Why is life > nonlife? Well, awareness contains a dignity value over nonlife that does not contain a moral wait value do to the lick of ability to access awareness, to me. The term “value theory” is used in at least three different ways in philosophy. In its broadest sense, “value theory” is a catch-all label used to encompass all branches of moral philosophy, social and political philosophy, aesthetics, and sometimes feminist philosophy and the philosophy of religion — whatever areas of philosophy are deemed to encompass some “evaluative” aspect. In its narrowest sense, “value theory” is used for a relatively narrow area of normative ethical theory particularly, but not exclusively, of concern to consequentialists. In this narrow sense, “value theory” is roughly synonymous with “axiology”. Axiology can be thought of as primarily concerned with classifying what things are good, and how good they are. For instance, a traditional question of axiology concerns whether the objects of value are subjective psychological states, or objective states of the world.

*Why are humans > nonhumans? We are “moral beings” can be expected to both understand moral weight of behaviour nonhumans don’t and thus only human can be held to moral standards as well as this puts humans in a different category with rights as well as responsibilities, to me. The level of intelligence as a general rule has a relation to its value as its connected to moral awareness or right ethical action.

*Why are family members > strangers? “In order to conceptualize value, you need to understand the environmental contexts, with five ecological systems.” We are limited beings can only do so much as in for almost all people in the world if they gave everything to the world could not support the world’s population as we are limited this means that too there is a survival requirement of ration/rationing by connected value, starting with one’s self then radiating out in general to the level of connection, here is just a rough outline: your child/spouse/partner(possibly friends seen as close family), then parents/siblings(possibly friends seen as family), then extended family(possibly friends seen as extended family), then remote extended family(possibly friends seen as remote extended family), then friends, then acquaintances/lesser friends, then people you work with or for, then people you know in your immediate area, then your city, then nearby cities then your state, then your region, then you country, then countries favorable to your country, then the then the world but for hostile countries, then the rest of the world regardless of if even if they are hostile countries. When a person accepts a certain position such as one that involves the welfare of others. Here is my Axiological Valuation approach to moral decision making would likely use an Ecological Systems Theory modal:

Individual: usually the highest value, though for some family(possibly a friend) members may have the same or higher value.

Microsystem: the next highest value are closest relationships, those connected to the individual and encompasses interpersonal relationships and direct interactions with immediate surroundings for example family or friends.

Mesosystem: the next high value includes close to semi-close relationships, for example, family friends or friends of friends.

Exosystem: the next value includes only semi or non-directly involved individuals/groups, for example, people at one’s job, places you frequent, then moving out and lessening in value as it goes city, then state, then region, then country, etc.

Macrosystem: the next lesser value includes all others outside with no connections, including other parts of the world not one’s country.


I appreciate that, Damien.

But it seems all you’ve done toward answering my questions is to label the >< relationships as axiomatic. That doesn’t make them axiomatic. I don’t value close relationships as having any higher value than strangers, and I see nothing in your blog to explain why I should other than that it’s easier, more convenient, to have more influence over family than strangers. I don’t see any reason that my convenience in having an effect on them as a reason to value them higher.


My response, pioneering new research by archaeologists at the University of York suggests that Neanderthals belied their primitive reputation and had a deep-seated sense of compassion. We are social beings with a general evolutionary persuasion motivates familial bonds over non-familial bonds? To me, is connected to our ability to express and understand caregiver compassion. The evolutionary roots of caregiver compassion where organisms within a species adopted different strategies of parental investment and what would later involve a reliance on caregiver compassion. Moreover, we may never completely know when and why caregiver compassion in general or familial compassion specifically. However, the fossil record can, in principle, provide a glimpse and what we see is altruism and even levels of compassion are seen in a variety of species and Kin Selection (genetic), Familial (upbringing) or Familiars (chance) Compassion are the primary evolutionary mechanism. The fossil record shows the arthropod “Kunmingella douvillei” 515 million years ago, arthropod “Waptia fieldensis” 508 million years ago, and arthropod “Ostracods” 450 million years ago to exhibit changes that played a key role in the early evolution of parental care. 1.9 million years ago Homo habilis, the first of our genus Homo who appeared, with modest expansion of a language part of the brain and 1.8 million years ago Homo erectus appeared and had a larger expansion of brain beginning to be regulated as an emotion integrated with rational thought and seem to demonstrate forms of compassion such as caring of sick which represents an extensive compassionate investment. By 500,000 years ago Homo heidelbergensis developed language skills and intelligence and what seems to have been an upward march in the commitments to the welfare of others. And evidence from 120,000 years ago demonstrates modern humans were involved in compassion which was extended to strangers, animals, objects and abstract concepts. Thus, we cannot think of survival of the fittest without realizing that the aspects of altruism, compassion, empathy, and kindness are part of what assists in that survival. In general, all social animals (which includes humans and their evolutionary ancestors) have had to modify or restrain their behaviors for group living which involves interacting highly with other animals, usually of their own species. Social animals are cooperative animals adding to their evolutionary fitness in this solidarity and can roughly be said to exhibit one of more of these behaviors: cooperative sustenance, cooperative upbringing, cooperative generational living, cooperative defense, and cooperative learning. To me, caregiver compassion is similar to what in general motivates family bonds with a closer connection and this is largely psychologically hardwired, though I do think there’s a big nurture factor as well. Such preference bonds added us in the fitness to survive. There are reasons to acknowledge that there can be psychological consequences in the weakening of familial bonds. There are reasons to acknowledge that strong relationships with other family members can help raise self-esteem and reduce anxiety. Are you asking me why you should care or that in any general rule it will not incapacitate every unique person’s persuasion? A long-running study published in September 2016 in Psychological Science found that men who grew up in warmer, more nurturing family environments had stronger relationships as older adults. It is argued that family psychology is relationship specific: the relationship between mother and daughter is different from that between father and daughter or that between brother and sister or sister and sister. In other words, humans have evolved specialized mechanisms for processing information and motivating behavior that deals with the distinct demands of being a mate, father, mother, sibling, child, or grandparent. Such an evolutionary perspective on family dynamics provides a unique insight into human behavior. refrefrefrefrefrefrefref

Kindness is in our genes: How desire to do good deeds is hard-wired into us by evolution: link

The Evolutionary Biology of Altruism, Compassion, cooperation, and community are key to our survival: link

What Price Kindness: Exposing the life and work of a visionary and troubled scientist opens a window onto the evolution of altruism: link

“The Evolution of Empathy by Frans de Waal We tend to think of empathy as a uniquely human trait. But it’s something apes and other animals demonstrate as well, says primatologist Frans de Waal. He shows how our evolutionary history suggests a deep-rooted propensity for feeling the emotions of others.” link

“Compassion: An Evolutionary Analysis: What is compassion? And how did it evolve? In this review, we integrate three evolutionary arguments that converge on the hypothesis that compassion evolved as a distinct affective experience whose primary function is to facilitate cooperation and protection of the weak and those who suffer. Our empirical review reveals compassion to have distinct appraisal processes attuned to undeserved suffering, distinct signalling behavior related to caregiving patterns of touch, posture, and vocalization, and a phenomenological experience and physiological response that orients the individual to social approach. This response profile of compassion differs from those of distress, sadness, and love, suggesting that compassion is indeed a distinct emotion. We conclude by considering how compassion shapes moral judgment and action, how it varies across different cultures, and how it may engage specific patterns of neural activation, as well as emerging directions of research.” link

“Human inclinations are not primarily selfish: kindness and altruism have been evolutionarily valued in mates, and even the youngest children often try to be helpful.” link

“Endangered Bonobos Reveal Evolution of Human Kindness: Experiments show the great apes share with strangers and empathize.” link

The Homeless Scientist Who Tried to Prove Selflessness Doesn’t Exist: link

Does evolution explain human nature: link


Damien, the evolution of kindness, fairness and altruism explains why we do value those behaviors, but axiology should be able to tell me why one should value a close relationship more than a stranger via argument and logic, independent of evolution. Axiology should be able to make a solid argument for automatically holding a close relationship at higher value than a stranger even to an alien life form. I still see axiology simply declaring such differential valuations as axiomatic, but a quick view of the world around us and across the ages shows that it is definitely not axiomatic.

My response, so, I guess we just disagree on that and I see nothing wrong with the axiom and it’s normative, as in its stating a general persuasion to a given behavior it’s not saying you have to just as a general standard where value is placed to add in moral judgments or choices. To me, as a general rule, there is a higher level of responsibility for one children’s wellbeing than the children in a country on the other side of the world. We will sometimes personally move value as in it could become greater when a teacher moves her to lose relations responsibilities being a teacher with the expanded ethical responsibility in a small way to the children they teach while the child in ones care during this time there is a temporary axiological expansion that lasts mainly during teaching only but during that time the expanded cercal of care and caregiver responsibility, are ethically added to the teachers lose relations category while they are at school. Or a fireman who has a responsibility to care for a city he ethically moves the city into his close personal relationship in a relationship if there is a fire when the fireman is at work. Just as a mother has an ethical duty to her children and not others in a general way this can change if she is caring for someone else’s child then that child is moved to the close relations similar to her own child and to not care for them is a moral violation to not harm a universal ethics with my axiology in how its right to care for the child. It’s stating the motivation and general ethical standard in relation to connections, you are generally more expected/morally responsible to aid others if a catastrophe happened on the houses next to you and your help could save a life, it is what we generally do is also evolutionary to me and thus, in this general context towards universal preferable behavior, I gave you the reasons, to me, it should be valued and why I think so, if you think that is lacking then I don’t know what to say. I say I have an objective standard for my naturalistic morality, it not an absolute morality, its normative standards like universal ethical principles.

Marissa Torres LangsethHAPI – Humanist Alliance Philippines, International asked where are you now in the Maslow’s hierarchical pyramid> and explain why:
 
My response, I am Self-actualized: I love facts and I hate harm, oppression, bigotry, and love equality, self-ownership, self-empowerment, self-actualization, and self-mastery, as well as truth and not only does religion lie, it is a conspiracy theory of reality. In Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, I feel I am generally at Kohlberg’s sixth stage, Level 3 (Post-Conventional morality persuasion), Universal ethical principles. In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another’s shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true. The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it avoids punishment, is in their best interest, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level. Kohlberg’s six stages can be more generally grouped into three levels of two stages each: pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional. Following Piaget’s constructivist requirements for a stage model, as described in his theory of cognitive development, it is extremely rare to regress in stages—to lose the use of higher stage abilities. In my college book on psychology stated that most people exhibit either a stage 3 or 4 level of conventional morality.  The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual’s own perspective may take precedence over society’s view; individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles—principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. People who exhibit post-conventional morality view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms—ideally rules can maintain the general social order and protect human rights. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions, their behavior, especially at stage six, can be confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level. Some theorists have speculated that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning. ref
The conventional level of moral reasoning, is typical of adolescents and most adults. To reason in a conventional way is to judge the morality of actions by comparing them to society’s views and expectations. The conventional level consists of the third and fourth stages of moral development. Conventional morality is characterized by an acceptance of society’s conventions concerning right and wrong. At this level an individual obeys rules and follows society’s norms even when there are no consequences for obedience or disobedience. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid, however, and a rule’s appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned. In Stage three (good intentions as determined by social consensus), the self enters society by conforming to social standards. Individuals are receptive to approval or disapproval from others as it reflects society’s views. They try to be a “good boy” or “good girl” to live up to these expectations, having learned that being regarded as good benefits the self. Stage three reasoning may judge the morality of an action by evaluating its consequences in terms of a person’s relationships, which now begin to include things like respect, gratitude, and the “golden rule“. “I want to be liked and thought well of; apparently, not being naughty makes people like me.” Conforming to the rules for one’s social role is not yet fully understood. The intentions of actors play a more significant role in reasoning at this stage; one may feel more forgiving if one thinks that “they mean well”. In Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums, and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three. A central ideal or ideals, often prescribe what is right and wrong. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would—thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force. ref

 But, Why Ought We Even Care?

Because kindness is like chicken soup to the essence of who we are, by validating the safety needs of our dignity. When the valuing of dignity is followed, a deep respect for one’s self and others as dignity beings has become one’s path. When we can see with the eyes of love and kindness, how well we finally see and understand what a demonstrates of a mature being of dignity when we value the human rights of others, as we now see others in the world as fellow beings of dignity. We need to understand what should be honored in others as fellow dignity beings and the realization of the value involved in that. As well as strive to understand how an attack to/on a person’s “human rights” is an attack to/on the value and worth of a dignity being. Yes, I want to see “you” that previous being of dignity worthy of high value and an honored moral weight to any violation of their self-ownership. And this dignity being with self-ownership rights is here before you seeking connection. what will you do, here you are in the question ever present even if never said aloud, do you see me now or are you stuck in trying to evaluate my value and assess worth as a fellow being of dignity. A violation of one’s dignity (Which it the emotional, awareness or the emotional detection of the world) as a dignity being can be quite harmful, simply we must see how it can create some physiological disturbance in the dignity being its done to. I am a mutualistic thinker and to me, we all are in this life together as fellow dignity beings. Therefore, I want my life to be of a benefit to others in the world. We are natural evolutionary derived dignity beings not supernatural magic derived soul/spirit beings. Stopping lying about who we are, as your made-up magic about reality which is forced causing a problem event (misunderstanding of axiological valuations) to the natural wonder of reality. What equals a dignity worth being, it is the being whose species has cognitive awareness and the expense of pain. To make another dignity being, feel pain is to do an attack to their dignity as well as your own. What equals a dignity worth being, it is the being whose species has cognitive awareness and the expense of pain. When I was younger I felt proud when I harmed those I did not like now I find it deserving even if doing it was seen as the only choice as I now see us for who we are valuable beings of dignity. I am not as worried about how I break the box you believe I need to fit as I am worried about the possibility of your confining hopes of hindering me with your limits, these life traps you have decided about and for me are as owning character attacks to my dignity’s needs which can be generalized as acceptance, understanding, and support. As I see it now, how odd I find it to have prejudice or bigotry against other humans who are intact previous fellow beings of dignity, we too often get blinded by the external packaging that holds a being of dignity internally. What I am saying don’t judge by the outside see the worth and human value they have as a dignity being. Why is it easier to see what is wrong then what is right? Why do I struggle in speaking what my heart loves as thorough and as passionate as what I dislike or hate? When you say “an act of mercy” the thing that is being appealed to or for is the proposal of or for the human quality of dignity. May my lips be sweetened with words of encouragement and compassion. May my Heart stay warm in the arms kindness. May my life be an expression of love to the world. Dignity arises in our emotional awareness depending on cognition. Our dignity is involved when you feel connected feelings with people, animals, plants, places, things, and ideas. Our dignity is involved when we feel an emotional bond “my family”, “my pet”, “my religion”, “my sport’s team” etc. Because of the core sensitivity of our dignity, we feel that when we connect, then we are also acknowledging, understanding, and supporting a perceived sense of dignity. Even if it’s not actually a dignity being in the case of plants, places, things, and ideas; and is rightly interacting with a dignity being in people and animals. We are trying to project “dignity developing motivation” towards them somewhere near equally even though human and animals don’t have the same morality weight to them. I am anthropocentric (from Greek means “human being center”) as an Axiological Atheist. I see humans value as above all other life’s value. Some say well, we are animals so they disagree with my destination.  But how do the facts play out? So, you don’t have any difference in value of life? Therefore, a bug is the same as a mouse, a mouse is the same as a dolphin, a dolphin is the same as a human, all to you have exactly the same value? Do you fight to protect the rights of each of them equally? And all killing of any of them is the same crime murder? I know I am an animal but you also know that we do have the term humans which no other animal is classified. And we don’t take other animals to court as only humans and not any other animals are like us. We are also genetically connected to plants and stars and that still doesn’t remove the special class humans removed from all other animals. A society where you can kill a human as easily as a mosquito would simply just not work ethically to me and it should not to any reasonable person either. If you think humans and animals are of equal value, are you obviously for stronger punishment for all animals to the level of humans? If so we need tougher laws against all animals including divorce and spousal or child support and we will jail any animal parent (deadbeat animal) who does not adequately as we have been avoiding this for too long and thankfully now that in the future the ideas about animals being equal we had to create a new animal police force and animal court system, not to mention are new animal jails as we will not accept such open child abuse and disregard for responsibilities? As we don’t want to treat animals as that would be unjust to some humans, but how does this even make sense? To me it doesn’t make sense as humans a different from all other animals even though some are similar in some ways. To further discuss my idea of *dignity developing motivation” can be seen in expressions like, I love you and I appreciate you. Or the behavior of living and appreciating. However, this is only true between higher cognitive aware beings as dignity and awareness of selfness is directly related to dignity awareness. The higher the dignity awareness the higher the moral weight of the dignity in the being’s dignity. What do you think are the best ways to cultivate dignity? Well, to me dignity is not a fixed thing and it feels honored or honoring others as well as help self-helping and other helping; like ones we love or those in need, just as our dignity is affected by the interactions with others. We can value our own dignity and we can and do grow this way, but as I see it because we are a social animals we can usually we cannot fully flourish with our dignity. Thus, dignity is emotionally needy for other dignity beings that is why I surmise at least a partially why we feel empathy and compassion or emotional bonds even with animals is a dignity awareness and response. Like when we say “my pet” cat one is acknowledging our increased personal and emotional connecting. So, when we exchange in experience with a pet animal what we have done is we raze their dignity. Our dignity flourishes with acceptance, understanding and support. Our dignity withers with rejection, misunderstanding, and opposition. Dignity: is the emotional sensitivity of our sense of self or the emotional understanding about our sense of self. When you say, they have a right to what they believe, what I hear is you think I don’t have a right to comment on it. Dignity is the emotional sensitivity of our sense of self or the emotional understanding about our sense of self. To me when we say it’s wrong to kill a human, that person is appealing to our need to value the dignity of the person.’ The person with whom may possibly be killed has a life essence with an attached value and moral weight valuations. And moral weight,’ which is different depending on the value of the dignity being you are addressing understanding moral weight as a kind of liability, responsibility, or rights is actualized. So, it’s the dignity to which we are saying validates the right to life. But I believe all living things with cognitively aware have a dignity. As to me dignity is the name I home to the emotional experience, emotional expression, emotional intelligence or sensitivity at the very core of our sense of self the more aware the hire that dignity value and thus worth. Dignity is often shredded similar to my thinking: “Moral, ethical, legal, and political discussions use the concept of dignity to express the idea that a being has an innate right to be valued, respected, and to receive ethical treatment. In the modern context dignity, can function as an extension of the Enlightenment-era concepts of inherent, inalienable rights. English-speakers often use the word “dignity” in prescriptive and cautionary ways: for example, in politics it can be used to critique the treatment of oppressed and vulnerable groups and peoples, but it has also been applied to cultures and sub-cultures, to religious beliefs and ideals, to animals used for food or research, and to plants. “Dignity” also has descriptive meanings pertaining to human worth. In general, the term has various functions and meanings depending on how the term is used and on the context.” Dignity, authenticity and integrity are of the highest value to our experience, yet ones that we must define for ourselves. People of hurt and harm, you are not as free to attack other beings of dignity without any effect on you as you may think. So, I am sorry not sorry that there is no such thing in general, as hurting or harming other beings of dignity without psychological destruction to the dignity being in us. This is an understanding that once done hunts and harm of other beings of dignity emotionally/psychologically hurts and harms your life as an acceptance needy dignity being, as we commonly experience moral discuss involuntary as on our deepest level as dignity beings. Disgust is deeply related to our sense of morality.

We honor the dignity in ourselves when we respect the dignity of others.


Babies & Morality?

“They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don’t create one. A team of researchers at Yale University’s Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion.” Ref

Animals and Morality?

5 Animals With a Moral Compass Moreover, Animals can tell right from wrong: Scientists studying animal behavior believe they have growing evidence that species ranging from mice to primates are governed by moral codes of conduct in the same way as humans. Likewise, in the book: Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of AnimalsScientists have long counseled against interpreting animal behavior in terms of human emotions, warning that such anthropomorphizing limits our ability to understand animals as they really are. Yet what are we to make of a female gorilla in a German zoo who spent days mourning the death of her baby? Or a wild female elephant who cared for a younger one after she was injured by a rambunctious teenage male? Or a rat who refused to push a lever for food when he saw that doing so caused another rat to be shocked? Aren&#8217;t these clear signs that animals have recognizable emotions and moral intelligence? With Wild Justice Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce unequivocally answer yes. Marrying years of behavioral and cognitive research with compelling and moving anecdotes, Bekoff and Pierce reveal that animals exhibit a broad repertoire of moral behaviors, including fairness, empathy, trust, and reciprocity. Underlying these behaviors is a complex and nuanced range of emotions, backed by a high degree of intelligence and surprising behavioral flexibility. Animals, in short, are incredibly adept social beings, relying on rules of conduct to navigate intricate social networks that are essential to their survival. Ultimately, Bekoff and Pierce draw the astonishing conclusion that there is no moral gap between humans and other species: morality is an evolved trait that we unquestionably share with other social mammals.

Moral Naturalism (James Lenman):

While “moral naturalism” is sometimes used to refer to any approach to metaethics intended to cohere with naturalism in metaphysics more generally, the label is more usually reserved for naturalistic forms of moral realism according to which there are objective moral facts and properties and these moral facts and properties are natural facts and properties. Views of this kind appeal to many as combining the advantages of naturalism and realism. Ref

Axiology: Two Worlds in Three Dimensions of Value http://www.valueinsights.com/axiology3.html
True morality is not as simple as the golden rule…

 True (real/valued/rational) morality is a valued behaviour we do that interacts with others; it is not really related to what we do to ourselves. Which is why I do not agree with the so-called golden rule as it is what you don’t want do to others but this fails in that its focused on ourselves which is us focused and true morality needs to be other focused on what valued behaviour we do that interacts with others. I say treat others the way they should be treated. People have self-ownership, self-rights, right to dignity, freedom and equality. True morality is a valued behaviour we do that interacts with others starting with the conception that people matter, they have worth and value, It is in this way they should be treated. One can choose to personally value some moral standard for themselves but because morals (the personal valued behaviors) as opposed to ethics (the interpersonal/social valued behaviors; which there is business never business morals as ethics is about our social behaviors we can hold others to, whereas, morals are only something we can hold ourselves to). Real Morality is an emergent aspect limited to a sphere of social dynamics (social) result in human progress and social evolution understood in mental processes of high cognitively developed beings (biological) with developed psychological quality of awareness (psychological) and the so-called moral facts and the values that support or motivate them is limited to the realm of possible harm psychological or physical (actual external world or experiential internal world). I would like to offer my understanding of how I see the layout of morality, values, morals and ethics as I see them. I see the term “morality” proper as the main moniker to a philosophic group (values, morals and ethics) or a main heading that involves the subheadings of values, morals and ethics. Values, morals, and ethics, in a basic observational way should be understood as falling under branches expressing different but similar thinking and behavioural persuasion. Values are the internal catalyst often motivating our thinking and behaviours. Such as, a value of all human life, would tend to motivate you to not wantonly end human lives. Just as a lack of value for all human life, may tend to motivate you to not have an issue with the wanton ending of human lives. Morals to me, are the personal persuasion that you value, such as having a desire for truthfulness. Then we have ethics and we know this is a different branch of the morality tree, as there is business ethics/professional ethics but not really business morals or professional morals; other than one’s self-chosen persuasion which may be adopted from business ethics/professional ethics. Ethics are as I have expressed our social universal prescriptions/persuasions public morality whereas morals to me are personal morality. Therefore, we can hold others to universal ethics standards (public morality) and not our moral proclivities that are not universal on others, as morals are for us (personal morality).

Here are my further thoughts on Real Morality vs. Pseudo Morality:

+Morals (Personal Morality relating to a “self” morality): are not held by all in the same way since all are not held to Orthodox faith and though most start with good and bad or right and wrong values, which usually are personally, familially, socially or religiously give or in some way otherworldly defined, thus not universal.

+Ethics (Social Morality relating to a “others” morality): Ethics are not constrained by a given religion’s value systems to motivate its ideas of right and wrong instead it relies on universal truths found in universal principles of just human action. Ethics is set standers uses to personally engage with others and universal truths assist goals of universal ethical standards. Thus, ethics are general prosocial prescription we as morality aware beings in a rather universal way tend to have some awareness of and it is not just an awareness as in one who holds to ethics often get it applies to all peoples. Some may wish to devalue people but to do so is not really unethical, though often it can lead to unethical behavior. So what I am trying to highlight is how in the behaviour that the ethics violation could occur as the internal attitude of devaluing others would only be a possible morals violation such as one who valued virtue and not getting it but failing by the persuasion of devaluing the life of other humans. This simple internal devaluing of humans, that they may be doing is vile. But ethics would not be involved until public behaviors with others, as such ethics is not so much a persuasion as an adherence to a standard(s) that should cover all thus it is highly applicable to utilize in environmental decision making.


Axiology, Naturalism, Realism and Moral Theory Ideas

Real (true/valid/reasoned) Morality is referrs to “ethics” (Social Morality relating to a “others” morality) as opposed to +Morals (Personal Morality relating to a “self” morality) because we use Real Morality or need to to assist in judging the behaviors in a social dynamic behavioral event or interaction and can only accrue in a social dynamic (social behavioral realm) as such all morality propositions removed from a social dynamic and which accrue only in a personal dynamic lack attachment to “Real Morality” referring to the social nature of “ethics.” In other words, if you are by yourself and do something only to yourself, it is neither ethical nor immorality; thus, doing a behavior that is only personal (a believed moral or otherwise) by yourself and only something to yourself, is amorality to everyone but that chosen person doing a behavior that is only personal. Pseudo Morality is seen when holy books or people “cognitively reconstruct” an inhumane idea or behaviour to make it into something different from than it is, to something more moral than what it actually is. Or turn something highly immoral into something highly moral. One way to do that is to cloak the behaviour “in moral wrappings” or “in divine authority” such as god hates gays, gays are evil, thus killing gays is doing good by destroying evil. This thinking is obviously pseudo morality as gays are not evil but killing them is an evil and inhumane idea or behaviour thus very immoral. The god justified immorality into what is then called moral is some of the most common pseudo-morality, though political leaders and others in power tend to employ it as well. They all are using “pseudo-moral justifications” to describe something immoral as moral. True morality is not as simple as the golden rule…


Did you know the Golden Rule is found in some variation in almost all faiths?

Baha’i Faith: “Lay not on any soul a load that you would not want to be laid upon you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself” –Bahu’u’llah

Buddhism: “Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful” –Udana-Varga 5:18

Christianity: “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law of the prophets” –Jesus in Matthew 7:12

Confucianism: “One word which sums up the basis of all good conduct…loving kindness. Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself” –Confucius, Analects 15:23

Hinduism: ” This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you” –Mahabharata 5:15-17

Humanism: “Try to embrace the moral principle known as the ‘Golden Rule’, otherwise known as the ethic of reciprocity, which means we believe that people should aim to treat each other as they would like to be treated themselves – with tolerance, consideration and compassion.” – Maria MacLachlan, Think Humanism

Islam: “Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself” –The Prophet Mohammad, Hadith

Jainism: “One should treat all creatures in the world as one would like to be treated” –Mahavira, Sutrakritanga

Judaism: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole Torah: all the rest is commentary” –Hillel, Talmud, Shabbat 31a

Native American: “We are as much alive as we keep the earth alive” –Chief Dan George

Satanism: “Do unto others as they do unto you”; because if you “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and they, in turn, treat you badly, it goes against human nature to continue to treat them with consideration. You should do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but if your courtesy is not returned, they should be treated with the wrath they deserve.” ― Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible

Sikhism: “I am a stranger to no one; and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all” –Guru Granth Sahib, pg. 1299

Taoism: “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss” –T’ai Shang Kan Yin P’ien 213-218

Unitarianism: “We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part” –Unitarian Principle

Wicca: “An’ it harm none, do as thou wilt” –The Wiccan Reed

Zoroastrianism: “Do not do unto others whatever is injurious to yourself. –Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29

True (real) morality is a valued behaviour we do that interacts with others; it is not really related to what we do to ourselves. Which is why I do not agree with the so-called golden rule as it is what you don’t want do to others but this fails in that its focused on ourselves which is us focused and true morality needs to be other focused on what valued behaviour we do that interacts with others. I say treat others the way they should be treated. People have self-ownership, self-rights, right to dignity, freedom, and equality. True morality is a valued behaviour we do that interacts with others starting with the conception that people matter, they have worth and value, It is in this way they should be treated.

Pseudo Morality is seen when holy books or people “cognitively reconstruct” an inhumane idea or behaviour to make it into something different from than it is, to something more moral than what it actually is. Or turn something highly immoral into something highly moral. One way to do that is to cloak the behaviour “in moral wrappings” or “in divine authority” such as god hates gays, gays are evil, thus killing gays is doing good by destroying evil. This thinking is obviously pseudo morality as gays are not evil but killing them is an evil and inhumane idea or behaviour thus very immoral. The god justified immoral into moral is some of the most common pseudo morality though political and others in power tend to employ it as well. They all are using “pseudo-moral justifications” to describe something immoral as moral. To me, true morality is not starting with an us or me focused morality, as morality is a social interaction exchange thus it must be other focused. “treating others as they should be treated” To me, I see everyone as owning themselves all equal in this right as humans. Moreover, to me morality is behavioural and a social property, there is no immoral thing one can do to themselves as one cannot violate themselves or their own consent as they choose their own actions. Thus, to me, all morality is about others and our interactions with them and them with us. So, morality arises in a social context with all things not that all things have the same moral weight. Therefore, moral relationships with life outside humans have a different moral weight or value. Such as, killing 100 humans is not the same as killing 100 dogs, killing 100 fish, killing 100 flies, etc. Of course, the method of killing used should inflict the least amount of suffering to the animal or plant. And to not do that could make it immoral. Such as torturing them to death is immoral even if the killing was not.

So, the golden rule? No thanks, I want real morality not reverse-selfishness driven morality.


Harm is often a violation of trust and a violation of expected trust makes bad things even worse like if I told you a child was killed, you would feel it was terrible but if I further told you it was the child’s doctor that murdered the child out of anger. You would be more angered as doctors are expected to care for people not harm them. And if you think that is bad what if I further told you the doctor who killed the child was her mother would you hold her even mone in contempt as mothers also are expected to care and not kill children, so a violation of trust is terrible and even makes things worse. Therefore, we can see why people that hold places of trust should never abuse them, and that we should hold them accountable if they do violate such trust by harming others. Morality first, that is morality should be at the forefront in all I do. I hope I am always strong enough to put my morality at the forefront in all I do, so much so, that it is obvious in the ways I think and behave. To better grasp, a naturalistic morality one should see the perspective of how there is a self-regulatory effect on the self-evaluative moral emotions, such as shame and guilt. Broadly conceived, self-regulation distinguishes between two types of motivation: approach/activation and avoidance/inhibition. one should conceptually understand the socialization dimensions (parental restrictiveness versus nurturance), associated emotions (anxiety versus empathy), and forms of morality (proscriptive versus prescriptive) that serve as precursors to each self-evaluative moral emotion.

Real Morality vs. Pseudo Morality

Religions Promote Pseudo-Morality

Think there is no objective morality?

True Morality Not the Golden Rule…

Axiological Atheism Morality Critique: of the bible god


My quick definition of Axiology?
Axiology is a philosophy (value theory) and a social science/science of value (formal axiology) mainly involving the “what, why, and how” of “value” the way epistemology approaches “knowledge” as in what is of value/good/worth/beneficial/ or useful? Why is the thing in question of value/good/worth/beneficial/or useful? How should the value/good/worth/beneficial/ or useful be interacted with? Real Morality is an emergent aspect limited to a sphere of social dynamics (social) result in human progress and social evolution understood in mental processes of high cognitively developed beings (biological) with developed psychological quality of awareness (psychological) and the so-called moral facts and the values that support or motivate them is limited to the realm of possible harm psychological or physical (actual external world or experiential internal world). I would like to offer my understanding of how I see the layout of morality, values, morals, and ethics as I see them. I see the term “morality” proper as the main moniker to a philosophic group (values, morals, and ethics) or a main heading that involves the subheadings of values, morals, and ethics. Values, morals, and ethics, in a basic observational way, should be understood as falling under branches expressing different but similar thinking and behavioural persuasion. Values are the internal catalyst often motivating our thinking and behaviours. Such as a value of all human life, would tend to motivate you to not wantonly end human lives. Just as a lack of value for all human life, may tend to motivate you to not have an issue with the wanton ending of human lives. Morals to me, are the personal persuasion that you value, such as having a desire for truthfulness. Then we have ethics and we know this is a different branch of the morality tree, as there is business ethics/professional ethics but not really business morals or professional morals; other than one’s self-chosen persuasion which may be adopted from business ethics/professional ethics. Ethics are as I have expressed our social universal prescriptions/persuasions public morality whereas morals to me are personal morality. Therefore, we can hold others to universal ethics standards (public morality) and not our moral proclivities that are not universal on others, as morals are for us (personal morality). To me, true Morality summed up to me is largely the expression of axiological value judgments/assessments carried into an appropriate valueized action. Axiology: Two Worlds in Three Dimensions of Value

Moral fear and Moral love (which together motivate my axiological ethics)?

“Sometimes justice has to outweigh care and sometimes care has to outweigh justice.”

And one may ask or question how do you discern the appropriate morality course of action between what is ethically right? To me, it takes Axiology (i.e. value consciousness: value judgment analysis of ethical appropriateness do to assess value involved).

MORAL FEAR (fight or flight “justice perspective”):

To feel a kind of morality “anxiety” (ethical apprehension to potentially cause harm) about behaviors and their outcomes empathy (I feel you) or sympathy (I feel for you) about something moral that may be done, is being done, or that has been done, thus feeling of distress, apprehension or alarm caused by value driven emotional intelligence concern; moral/ethical anxiety to the possibility; chance (to do something as a moral thinker and an ethical actor) or dread; respect (to take the sensitivity of a personal moral choice that leads one to choose an ethical behavior(s) and grasping the moral weight of the actions involved and potential outcomes this engagement can or will likely create (using data from learning whether theoretical or practical to lessen the effect of an unpleasant choice as much as posable (morality development/awareness/goals/persuasion). “Moral Anxiety, improves us, while Social Anxiety kills. Some anxieties are indicators of healthy curiosity and strong moral fiber, while others are a source of severe stress. Knowing which is which can help you to navigate your personal, professional, and intellectual life more effectively.” Ref Moral fear thus is a kind of morality “anxiety” that motivates a fascinating aspect of humanity, which is that we hold ourselves to high moral standards. With our values and emotional intelligence and moral development, we gain a developed prosocial persuasion thus “tend to self-impose rules on ourselves to protect society from the short-term temptations that might cause us to do things that would have a negative impact in the long-run.  For example, we might be tempted to harm a person who bothers us, but a society in which everyone gave in to the temptation to hurt those who made us angry would quickly devolve into chaos. And once we accept that emotion plays some role in complex decisions, it is important to figure out which emotions are influencing different kinds of choices. Therefore, when we make these moral judgments to an extent we are somewhat driven by our ability to reason about the consequences of the actions or are  influenced by their emotions to or about the outcomes of the consequences of the actions.” https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201308/anxiety-and-moral-judgment

*ps. MORAL FEAR (fight or flight “consequentialist ethics/utilitarian ethics”) is roughly referring to the fight-or-flight response, also known as the acute stress response, refers to a physiological reaction that occurs in the presence of something that is terrifying, either mentally or physically. The fight-or-flight response (also called hyperarousal, or the acute stress response) is a physiological reaction that occurs in response to a perceived harmful eventattack, or threat to survival. An evolutionary psychology explanation is that early animals had to react to threatening stimuli quickly and did not have time to psychologically and physically prepare themselves. The fight or flight response provided them with the mechanisms to rapidly respond to threats against survival. This response is recognized as the first stage of the general adaptation syndrome that regulates stress responses among vertebrates and other organisms. The reaction begins in the amygdala, which triggers a neural response in the hypothalamus. The initial reaction is followed by activation of the pituitary gland and secretion of the hormone ACTH. The adrenal gland is activated almost simultaneously and releases the hormone epinephrine. The release of chemical messengers results in the production of the hormone cortisol, which increases blood pressureblood sugar, and suppresses the immune system. The initial response and subsequent reactions are triggered in an effort to create a boost of energy. This boost of energy is activated by epinephrine binding to liver cells and the subsequent production of glucose. Additionally, the circulation of cortisol functions to turn fatty acids into available energy, which prepares muscles throughout the body for response. Catecholamine hormones, such as adrenaline (epinephrine) or noradrenaline (norepinephrine), facilitate immediate physical reactions associated with a preparation for violent muscular action and :

The physiological changes that occur during the fight or flight response are activated in order to give the body increased strength and speed in anticipation of fighting or running. Some of the specific physiological changes and their functions include:

  • Increased blood flow to the muscles activated by diverting blood flow from other parts of the body.
  • Increased blood pressure, heart rate, blood sugars, and fats in order to supply the body with extra energy.
  • The blood clotting function of the body speeds up in order to prevent excessive blood loss in the event of an injury sustained during the response.
  • Increased muscle tension in order to provide the body with extra speed and strength. RefRef

Here is a little on Consequentialist ethics and Utilitarian ethics

*Consequentialist ethics: involves a class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. In an extreme form, the idea of consequentialism is commonly encapsulated in the saying, “the end justifies the means“, meaning that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable. Consequentialism is usually contrasted with deontological ethics (or deontology), in that deontology, in which rules and moral duty are central, derives the rightness or wrongness of one’s conduct from the character of the behaviour itself rather than the outcomes of the conduct. It is also contrasted with virtue ethics, which focuses on the character of the agent rather than on the nature or consequences of the act (or omission) itself, and pragmatic ethics which treats morality like science: advancing socially over the course of many lifetimes, such that any moral criterion is subject to revision. Consequentialist theories differ in how they define moral goods. Some argue that consequentialist and deontological theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, T. M. Scanlon advances the idea that human rights, which are commonly considered a “deontological” concept, can only be justified with reference to the consequences of having those rights. Similarly, Robert Nozick argues for a theory that is mostly consequentialist, but incorporates inviolable “side-constraints” which restrict the sort of actions agents are permitted to do. Ref

*Utilitarian ethics: involve an ethical theory which states that the best action is the one that maximizes utility. “Utility” is defined in various ways, usually in terms of the well-being of sentient entities. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, described utility as the sum of all pleasure that results from an action, minus the suffering of anyone involved in the action. Utilitarianism is a version of consequentialism, which states that the consequences of any action are the only standard of right and wrong. Unlike other forms of consequentialism, such as egoism, utilitarianism considers the interests of all beings equally. Proponents of utilitarianism have disagreed on a number of points, such as whether actions should be chosen based on their likely results (act utilitarianism) or whether agents should conform to rules that maximize utility (rule utilitarianism). There is also disagreement as to whether total (total utilitarianism) or average (average utilitarianism) utility should be maximized. Though the seeds of the theory can be found in the hedonists Aristippus and Epicurus, who viewed happiness as the only good, the tradition of utilitarianism properly began with Bentham, and has included John Stuart MillHenry SidgwickR. M. HareDavid Braybrooke, and Peter Singer. It has been applied to social welfare economics, the crisis of global poverty, the ethics of raising animals for food and the importance of avoiding existential risks to humanity. Because utilitarianism is not a single theory but a cluster of related theories that have been developed over two hundred years, criticisms can be made for different reasons and have different targets. Karl Marx, in Das Kapital, criticises Bentham’s utilitarianism on the grounds that it does not appear to recognize that different people have different joys:

Not even excepting our philosopher, Christian Wolff, in no time and in no country has the most homespun commonplace ever strutted about in so self-satisfied a way. The principle of utility was no discovery of Bentham. He simply reproduced in his dull way what Helvétius and other Frenchmen had said with esprit in the 18th century. To know what is useful for a dog, one must study dog-nature. This nature itself is not to be deduced from the principle of utility. Applying this to man, he who would criticize all human acts, movements, relations, etc., by the principle of utility, must first deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch. Bentham makes short work of it. With the driest naivete he takes the modern shopkeeper, especially the English shopkeeper, as the normal man. Whatever is useful to this queer normal man, and to his world, is absolutely useful. This yard-measure, then, he applies to past, present, and future. The Christian religion, e.g., is “useful,” “because it forbids in the name of religion the same faults that the penal code condemns in the name of the law.” Artistic criticism is “harmful,” because it disturbs worthy people in their enjoyment of Martin Tupper, etc. With such rubbish has the brave fellow, with his motto, “nulla dies sine linea [no day without a line]”, piled up mountains of books.

An article in the American Journal for Economics has addressed the issue of Utilitarian ethics within redistribution of wealth. The journal stated that taxation of the wealthy is the best way to make use of the disposable income they receive. This says that the money creates utility for the most people by funding government services. Many utilitarian philosophers, including Peter Singer and Toby Ord, argue that inhabitants of developed countries, in particular, have an obligation to help to end extreme poverty across the world, for example by regularly donating some of their income to charity. Peter Singer, for example, argues that donating some of one’s income to charity could help to save a life or cure somebody from a poverty-related illness, which is a much better use of the money as it brings someone in extreme poverty far more happiness than it would bring to oneself if one lived in relative comfort. However, Singer not only argues that one ought to donate a significant proportion of one’s income to charity, but also that this money should be directed to the most cost-effective charities, in order to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number, consistent with utilitarian thinking. Singer’s ideas have formed the basis of the modern effective altruist movement. ref

MORAL LOVE (tend and befriend “voice of care perspective”):

To me, this relates to care/caring ethics, which affirms the importance of caring motivation, emotion and the body in moral deliberation, as well as reasoning from particulars.This moral theory is known as “ the ethics of care” implies that there is moral significance in the fundamental elements of relationships and dependencies in human life. Normatively, care ethics seeks to maintain relationships by contextualizing and promoting the well-being of care-givers and care-receivers in a network of social relations. Most often defined as a practice or virtue rather than a theory as such, “care” involves maintaining the world of, and meeting the needs of, ourself and others. It builds on the motivation to care for those who are dependent and vulnerable, and it is inspired by both memories of being cared for and the idealizations of self. Following in the sentimentalist tradition of moral theory, care ethics affirms the importance of caring motivation, emotion and the body in moral deliberation, as well as reasoning from particulars. One of the original works of care ethics was Milton Mayeroff’s short book, On Caring, but the emergence of care ethics as a distinct moral theory is most often attributed to the works of psychologist Carol Gilligan and philosopher Nel Noddings in the mid-1980s. Though there are notable thinkers who express early strains of care ethics such as those that can be detected in the writings of feminist philosophers such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Catherine and Harriet Beecher, and Charlotte Perkins. Offering a general charged that traditional moral approaches contain a kinda of male bias, and asserted the “voice of care” as a legitimate alternative to the “justice perspective” of liberal human rights theory. Annette Baier, Virginia Held, Eva Feder Kittay, Sara Ruddick, and Joan Tronto are some of the most influential among many subsequent contributors to care ethics. Typically contrasted with deontological/Kantian and consequentialist/utilitarian ethics, is that of care ethics.

*ps. MORAL LOVE (tend and befriend “care ethics (ethics of care)/reciprocity (reciprocal altruismethics”) is similar to the fight or flight which is also only part of a bigger picture, according to Shelley Taylor, Ph.D., a psychology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and her colleagues. In the Psychological Review, as in evolutionary psychology, researchers describe how stress can elicit another behavioral pattern they call “tend and befriend”–especially in females. Tend-and-befriend is a behavior exhibited by some animals, including humans, in response to threat. It refers to protection of offspring (tending) and seeking out the social group for mutual defense (befriending), tend-and-befriend is theorized as having evolved as the typical female response to stress, just as the primary male response was fight-or-flight. This kind of gender determinism within the field is the subject of some controversy but I see it as to limited as well because we tend to use multiple sstrategiesto further sucuresafty depending of avalable resorces and if one regardless of gender persuasion is not able to either adequately defend themselves/or others (the fight part of  fight or flight ) or is not able to either adequately flee a given threat (the flight part of  fight or flight ) then other options such as  The tend-and-befriend theoretical model was originally developed by Dr. Shelley E. Taylor and her research team at the University of California, Los Angeles and first described in a Psychological Review article published in the year 2000.

Here is a little on Care ethics and Reciprocal altruism

*Care ethics: is a normativeethical theory that holds interpersonal relationships and care or benevolence as a virtue as central to moral action. It is one of a cluster of normative ethical theories that were developed by feminists in the second half of the twentieth century. Here is a link to Feminist ethics. While consequentialist and deontological ethical theories emphasize universal standards and impartiality, ethics of care emphasize the importance of response. The shift in moral perspective is manifested by a change in the moral question from “what is just?” to “how to respond?”. Ethics of care criticize application of universal standards as “morally problematic since it breeds moral blindness or indifference.”

Some beliefs of the theory are basic:

  1. Persons are understood to have varying degrees of dependence and interdependence on one another. This is in contrast to deontological and consequentialist theories that tend to view persons as having independent interests and interactions.
  2. Those particularly vulnerable to one’s choices and their outcomes deserve extra consideration to be measured according to their vulnerability to one’s choices.
  3. It is necessary to attend to contextual details of situations in order to safeguard and promote the actual specific interests of those involved.

Care ethics contrasts with more well-known ethical models, such as consequentialist theories (e.g. utilitarianism) and deontological theories (e.g. Kantian ethics) in that it seeks to incorporate traditionally feminized virtues and values which, proponents of care ethics contend, are absent in such traditional models of ethics. While some feminists have criticized care-based ethics for reinforcing traditional stereotypes of a “good woman” others have embraced parts of this paradigm under the theoretical concept of care-focused feminism. Care-focused feminism is a branch of feminist thought, informed primarily by ethics of care as developed by Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings. This body of theory is critical of how caring is socially engendered to women and consequently devalued. “Care-focused feminists regard women’s capacity for care as a human strength” which can and should be taught to and expected of men as well as women. Noddings proposes that ethical caring has the potential to be a more concrete evaluative model of moral dilemma, than an ethic of justice. Noddings’ care-focused feminism requires practical application of relational ethics, predicated on an ethic of care. Ethics of care is also a basis for care-focused feminist theorizing on maternal ethics. Critical of how society engenders caring labor, theorists Sara RuddickVirginia Held, and Eva Feder Kittay suggest caring should be performed and caregivers valued in both public and private spheres. Their theories recognize caring as an ethically relevant issue. This proposed paradigm shift in ethics encourages that an ethic of caring be the social responsibility of both men and women. Joan Tronto argues that the definition of the term “ethic of care” is ambiguous due in part to the lack of a central role it plays in moral theory. She argues that considering moral philosophy is engaged with human goodness, then care would appear to assume a significant role in this type of philosophy. However, this is not the case and Tronto further stresses the association between care and “naturalness”. The latter term refers to the socially and culturally constructed gender roles where care is mainly assumed to be the role of the woman. As such, care loses the power to take a central role in moral theory. Tronto states there are four ethical elements of care:

  1. Attentiveness
    Attentiveness is crucial to the ethics of care because care requires a recognition of others’ needs in order to respond to them. The question which arises is the distinction between ignorance and inattentiveness. Tronto poses this question as such, “But when is ignorance simply ignorance, and when is it inattentiveness”?
  2. Responsibility
    In order to care, we must take it upon ourselves, thus responsibility. The problem associated with this second ethical element of responsibility is the question of obligation. Obligation is often, if not already, tied to pre-established societal and cultural norms and roles. Tronto makes the effort to differentiate the terms “responsibility” and “obligation” with regards to the ethic of care. Responsibility is ambiguous, whereas obligation refers to situations where action or reaction is due, such as the case of a legal contract. This ambiguity allows for ebb and flow in and between class structures and gender roles, and to other socially constructed roles that would bind responsibility to those only befitting of those roles.
  3. Competence
    To provide care also means competency. One cannot simply acknowledge the need to care, accept the responsibility, but not follow through with enough adequacy – as such action would result in the need of care not being met.
  4. Responsiveness
    This refers to the “responsiveness of the care receiver to the care”. Tronto states, “Responsiveness signals an important moral problem within care: by its nature, care is concerned with conditions of vulnerability and inequality”. She further argues responsiveness does not equal reciprocity. Rather, it is another method to understand vulnerability and inequality by understanding what has been expressed by those in the vulnerable position, as opposed to re-imagining oneself in a similar situation. Ref

Reciprocal altruism: (the evolution of cooperation)is a social interaction phenomenon where an individual makes sacrifices for another individual in expectation of similar treatment in the future. Originally introduced as a concept by biologist Robert Trivers, reciprocal altruism explains how altruistic behavior and morality can arise from evolutionary causes, as evolution selects for the best possible game theory results. If the benefit is higher than the initial cost, then multiple reciprocal interactions can actually out-compete more “greedy” forms of relationships, thus providing an evolutionary incentive for altruistic behavior. At the same time (and in opposition to unlimited altruism), reciprocity ensures that cheaters are also harmed when they choose to do so and are gradually made less fit as a result of their own behavior. Modern ethnology seems to support at least part of this hypothesis, as many societies on all continents have developed highly complex forms of gift economy where gifts are given with no immediately obvious material return, but the implicit societal expectation of “repayment” in gift form at some later point in time. Amazingly, those societies work. The custom of giving gifts for birthdays in the West may be seen as a remnant of this. It’s not uncommon for someone to engage in this behavior with the object of their affection, i.e. being nice to them with the expectation of a sexual relationship. Since a lot of these situations tend to involve lonely, single straightmen, the common term for this is “Nice Guy” — in other words, the suitor’s claim “but I’m a nice guy…” translates to “I went through all the motions and she still won’t sleep with me.” As a general rule, this is not an effective strategy, and often even drifts into stalking behavior. Women who engage in the same behavior do not get as much attention but are still known (naturally) as Nice Girls. Either way, such people are seldom actually nice, and frequently come off as manipulative and bitter without realizing it. The fallacy lies in their equating sexual relationship with being nice – if their expectation of tit for tat was actually equal, aka being nice for being nice and being honest for being honest (which they, coming into relationship with entirely different expectations than they communicate, fail at), they wouldn’t face such a problem. Ref


I see my Axiological driven morality to involve an enmeshed union of both: fight or flight “justice perspective” and a tend and befriend “voice of care perspective”

Helping is HelpfulValuing, Motivating, Supporting

How to Grow in Our Positive Outcomes: Gratitude, Empathy, and Kindness

We can become a more quality person by actively being aware and developing a gratitude for life, which supports as well as grows our feelings of empathy, that then motivates the behavior of kindness.

Universal Ethical Standards?

There are several ethical standards that are considered to be self-evident and seem to apply to all people throughout all of history, regardless of cultural, political, social, or economic context. The non-aggression principle, which prohibits aggression, or the initiation of force or violence against another person, is a universal ethical principle. My Examples of aggression include murder, rape, kidnapping, assault, robbery, theft, and vandalism. On the other hand, the commission of any of such acts in response to aggression does not necessarily violate universal ethics. There are obvious reasons why universal ethics are beneficial to society. For example, if people were allowed to kill or steal, this would lead to widespread chaos and violence and would be detrimental to the well-being of society. Most people agree that it’s better to prohibit aggression than to allow everyone to commit it. Therefore, aggression is intrinsically immoral. Although nearly all societies have laws prohibiting aggression, this does not mean that universal ethics are necessarily reflected by that society’s government or its dominant ideology. Universal ethics does not mean the imposition of one set of morals by one group on another. It means a shared way or means of reaching a consensus on norms and values that also accepts diversity. A shared understanding of what is right and what is wrong. In any circumstance or situation, we can start by examining the present state of affairs. This should be done with the aim of gaining an understanding of other cultural differences, history, and tradition, remembering that an explanation is not necessarily a justification. Next, what is the minimum that is acceptable? There has to be an acceptance that some disagreements cannot be resolved at that time. The aim is to change the present situation for the better. Once an acceptable minimum is reached, it is possible to work towards an eventual ideal state. We are all one community and we are all responsible for upholding human rights for each other. More than ever there is a need for agreement on the existence of universally held values and the content of those values. It may prove to be impossible to find one set of universal ethical principles that apply to all cultures, philosophies, faiths and professions but the destination is only part of the journey. The value lies in the search for principles that can be shared by all and can underpin the framework for global dialogue on ethical issues. A universal moral code might be a set of underlying dispositions we are all born with. Or it might be a set of explicit norms and values humans might one day universally accept. But a more important sense of ‘universal moral code’ is of a set of moral values that is universally valid, whether or not it is inscribed in our brains, or accepted by people. Of course, that is a very controversial idea. If there is such a universal moral code, then we have an imperative to try to discover it, and to make it universally accepted (to make it a moral code in the descriptive sense). But this requires thinking hard about ethics, not looking for some code that might or might not be written into our brains. RefRefRef

1.Values (morality motivations): are a amalgam of personal, family, local or extended group environmental, religious and/or cultural content etc. we are what we eat we are the knowledge we consume and the ideas we are sounded by. Values to me thus are self driven ideals others influenced. I like to think myself out of the matrix though if I would have grown up in china would I not be a different me. Born rich and loved as a child be different or adopted be Angelina Jolie be forever changed. Or the love child of Jeffry Dahmer or Mahatma Gondi would I still be the same me with the same values? I think not. Values are not fixed they change throughout one’s lifetime they can be absolute or relative, the assumption of which can be the basis for any sort of chosen action. Thus, a value system is a set of consistent values and measures one chooses because of their connectedness to chosen ideals. Values to me can be a foundation upon which other thinking streams and measures of ideal integrity are based. Those values which are not physiologically determined and normally considered objective, such as a desire to avoid physical pain, seek pleasure, etc., are considered subjective, vary across individuals and cultures and are in many ways aligned with belief and belief systems only truth to a set of people.

2.Morals (personal morality): are not held by all in the same way since all are not held to Orthodox faith and though most start with good and bad or right and wrong values, which usually are personally, familially, socially or religiously give or in some way otherworldly defined, thus not universal.

3.Ethics (public morality): Ethics are not constrained by a given religion’s value systems to motivate its ideas of right and wrong instead it relies on universal truths found in universal principles of just human action. Ethics is set standers uses to personally engage with others and universal truths assist goals of universal ethics standards. Thus, ethics are general prosocial prescription we as morality aware beings in a rather universal way tend to have some awareness of and it is not just an awareness as in one who holds to ethics often get it applies to all peoples. Some may wish to devalue people but to do so is not really unethical, though often it can lead to unethical behavior. So what I am trying to highlight is how in the behaviour that the ethics violation could occur as the internal attitude of devaluing others would only be a possible morals violation such as one who valued virtue and not getting it but failing by the persuasion of devaluing the life of other humans. This simple internal devaluing of humans, that they may be doing is vile. But ethics would not be involved until public behaviors with others, as such ethics is not so much a persuasion as an adherence to a standard(s) that should cover all  thus it is highly applicable to utilize in environmental decision making.


In general, I am a Universal Ethicist?

I am a Universal Ethicist holding the value of universal ethical principles and a Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a moral doctrine, a justice reasoning not for or by any mythology or toads direct opposition to any religion or faith in goddess or gods (Kuhmerker, Gielen, & Hayes, 1994). Universal ethicists is one who draw from collective values, no matter what country or varied cultures, claim that what is acceptable generally are common ethical standards that can be used to judged moral behaviors regardless of location (Newton, 2009). Universal ethical principles are a form of natural and rational moral code for all humankind not fixed or proclaimed by moral prophets or the founders of the world’s religions (Foldvary, 1980). What Universal ethical principles and a Universal Declaration of Human Rights are is a strict standard of freedoms, justus and principles applicable to all. Such values extend to all children and adult alike having the same rights. All rights are interconnected and of equal importance (United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, 2008). A Universal Ethicist Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world (United Nations, 2008). A Universal Ethicist value of universal ethical principles is different to religious proclaimed moral codes because universal ethical principles is ethical codes to set all free to believe and live as they wish but strive to do no harm and applicable to all humankind whether religious or not (Foldvary, 1980).

Universal Ethics?
 
Here are the universal principles of Social/Global Ethics:
 
*Global justice (as reflected in international laws)
*Society before self / social responsibility
*Environmental stewardship
*Interdependence & responsibility for the ‘whole’
*Reverence for place
 
Here are the universal principles of Professional/ Political Ethics:
*Impartiality; objectivity
*Openness; full disclosure
*Confidentiality
*Due diligence / duty of care
*Fidelity to professional responsibilities
*Avoiding potential or apparent conflict of interest
 
Here are the universal principles of Personal Ethics:
*Concern for the well-being of others
*Respect for the autonomy of others
*Trustworthiness & honesty
*Willing compliance with the law (with the exception of civil disobedience)
*Basic justice; being fair
*Refusing to take unfair advantage
*Benevolence: doing good
*Preventing harm (Colero, n.d.).

But What Good is a Set of Principles?

There are many tools for decision making, but few (secular) guides to indicate when situations might have an ethical implication. Yet this awareness is a crucial first step before decisions are made. Recognizing the moral context of a situation must precede any attempt to resolve it. Otherwise, what’s to resolve? Ethical dilemmas rarely present themselves as such. They usually pass us by before we know it or develop so gradually that we can only recognize them in hindsight – a little like noticing the snake after you’ve been bitten. But what are the signs that a snake might be present? An ethical framework is like a ‘snake detector’. I offer the following principles as landmarks – generic indicators to be used as compelling guides for an active conscience. They are NOT absolute rules or values. They are more like a rough measurement where an exact one is not possible. They often conflict with each other in practice, and some will trump others under certain circumstances. But as principles that need to be considered, they appear constant. These principles are compatible with the argument that we should simply follow our intuition and rely on the ‘inner voice’. However, that voice is not always audible, and today’s society presents a wide range of complex circumstances that require more guidance than simply ‘concern for others’ or ‘does it feel right?’ And so these principles are offered effectively as a more detailed reference. In a sense, the principles are outcomes of the mother of all principles – unconditional love and compassion – which appears in virtually all faiths, and is expressed here as ‘concern for the well-being of others’. (This principle is at the heart of the stakeholder model of ethics, i.e. what is my impact on others?) At first glance, they will appear obvious and perhaps trite or simplistic. Keep in mind that they are meant to be practical rather than groundbreaking, and that many people have found them useful in the absence of other guides.


“Universal ethics: there are several ethical standards that are considered to be self-evident, and seem to apply to all people throughout all of history, regardless of cultural, political, social, or economic context. The non-aggression principle, which prohibits aggression, or the initiation of force or violence against another person, is a universal ethical principle. Examples of aggression include murder, rape, kidnapping, assault, robbery, theft, and vandalism. On the other hand, the commission of any of such acts in response to aggression does not necessarily violate universal ethics. There are obvious reasons why universal ethics are beneficial to society. For example, if people were allowed to kill or steal, this would lead to widespread chaos and violence, and would be detrimental to the well-being of society. Most people agree that it’s better to prohibit aggression than to allow everyone to commit it. Therefore, aggression is intrinsically immoral. Although nearly all societies have laws prohibiting aggression, this does not mean that universal ethics are necessarily reflected by that society’s government or its dominant ideology. In ethics, a ‘universal code of ethics’ is a system of ethics that can apply to every sentient being.” Ref


Atheist for Non-Aggression

I am against all violence that is not self-defense or other-defense as I am for non-aggression.
 
I am an Atheist for Non-Aggression. I am not nor have I ever said I was a pacifist, I am for striving to minimize aggression or violence and do believe violence can be justified in self-defense and other-defense.

It seems, in general, the less education and higher poverty have a higher correlation to being religious.

I am an Axiological Atheist, with a Rationalist Persuasion, who Supports Anarcho-Humanism


Am I a survivor?
 
I fell as you tripped me again and from your hate, I remove myself from such mind and being corruption freely walking into the gates of love so longed for. You have not beaten me, you cannot stop me, you don’t want me to live, to thrive, to be all the best I can be but you hate and yet I am still here, a survivor, a full life liver, a thriver, as well as a warrior for kindness and compassion, reaching the care I was rarely offered, as a gift to the ones so desperately oppressed under your harsh gaze. May we all be free and the positive best we can be, I know I am as best I can. I am here growing stronger every day. Who am I, you ask, I respond loud and proud, I am a survivor and even in these chains from my past, you will not stop me. Sometimes, we need to see the truth, that many people are liers and deniers while claiming they are believers. Once we stop seeing the dignity of others we feel free to violate them with impunity. But when dignity is a friend respect has become once path.
 
I am a survivor!

Here is My “Anarcho-Humanist” Non-Aggression-Axiom
My anarcho-humanist non-aggression-axiom is centered on the acknowledgement, respect, and support for every human’s self-ownership. This honor of self-ownership of my fellow humans including an ever-present respect for other people who are fellow “dignity beings” which also have self-ownership rights just like me and are equal in human worth. My anarcho-humanist non-aggression-axiom is a humanistic call for Anti-Violence, Anti-Spanking, Anti-Circumcision, Anti-Bullying, Anti-Violence, Anti-sexual Violence, Anti-child maltreatment, Anti-animal cruelty, Anti-Domestic Violence, and Anti-Verbal Violence (Threats, Character Assassination, Intimidation), Pro-Ethics, Pro-Body Sovereignty, Pro-Empathy, and Equality. Let positive change begin with me, for I realize I am responsible for there is no god to save us or protect us. For those who think attacking religion is some kind of Character Assassination because its people that are religious. You are confused because character assassination is attacking people with abusive name calling not confronting religion dishonesty. Character Assassination is not being justifiably mentally aggressive as in one challenging, holy figures, gods, religions, myths, superstitions, beliefs, or deluded or misinformed ideas. Character Assassination is not meaning strong stances, an aggressive challenge in rational arguments, or pitilessly exposing injustice, harm or oppression. It is our passion and an honored chosen duty to promote Non-Aggression and speak the truth of atheism and ethical behavior so people don’t stay misinform abused or oppressed. I value anti-violence (I am not a pacifist at all, I am actually a fighter by nature) unless the aggression or violence is for direct self-defense or other-defense. Let it begin with me.
States may often have powers, but only citizens have the glue of morality we call rights.  And, as they say, in my “dream society”, lots of things are free (aka. planting free food everywhere, free to everyone); but I wonder what you mean when people say you can’t just let things be free, I think, yeah, how can I take free stuff from a free earth.

Anarcho-Humanism, to me, is atheistic humanism with an unconditional social awareness:

Anarcho (anarchism): “No Gods – No Masters”

Humanism: “No Harm – Do Good”


Rationalism, Freethinker, Humanism & Secular humanism?

Let’s Discuss Humanism


My core definition of humanism is that humans can solve human problems by human means. I am not saying other things can’t or shouldn’t be added to it but to me a definition of humanism must always contain something coherent to such a thinking or not contradict such as I have offered. Thus, why it is appropriate to say “good without god” when one is a humanist.

Confusions in Atheism and Humanism

Categories and Versions of Humanism

Positive Humanism

Atheistic Humanism?


Using a universal declaration of ethical principles to build a better world?
 
The Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists describes ethical principles based on shared human values across cultures. It reaffirms the commitment of the psychology community to help build a better world where peace, freedom, responsibility, justice, humanity, and morality will prevail. It also provides: (a) a shared moral framework for psychology to speak with a collective voice on matters of ethical concern; (b) a moral guideline to identify harmful aspects of societal changes, and to advocate for social changes that benefit to all persons and all peoples; (c) a global consensus on the fundamental attitude toward good and evil, and on the basic guiding ethical principles for decisions and actions; (d) a tool to help psychologists to focus on ethical thinking and behavior across all aspects of professional and scientific activities; and (e) an inspiration to strive toward the highest ethical ideals as psychologists and citizens of the world. Like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed in 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations, the promotion of the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists will have a significant influence in time on the creation of a safer, more just and more prosperous world. All professionals and laypersons that provide community mental health services around the world are citizens of the world. Mental health providers who adhere to ethical principles in their work within the world’s many different countries and cultures contribute to a stable society which enhances the quality of life for all human beings. Together, by participating in the promotion of ethical principles such as those in the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists, mental health providers can make a significant contribution to global human rights and to building a global society based on respect and caring for persons and peoples. Ethics and human rights: strengthening and complementing each other, There is a clear and strong link between the articulation of professional ethics and of human rights. Both share two fundamental goals: the protection of society from harm and the enhancement of the quality of life of its members. Both rely on recognized moral imperatives to achieve their goals. In 1948, in the aftermath of WWII and before the development of ethics codes in psychology, the United Nations proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for the endorsement of all nations to maintain human rights and to protect their peoples from harm. In 2008, sixty years later, in an increasingly globalized world, the International Union of Psychological Science and the International Association of Applied Psychology adopted the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists. This latter declaration commits psychologists worldwide to be guided by fundamental ethical principles of respect and caring in all of psychology’s interactions with persons and peoples. There is a high level of congruence between the ethical principles and values recognized in the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists and the moral imperatives underlying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, there are differences in language, concept, structure and emphasis between the two documents. These differences strengthen and complement each other. Here are some examples:
 
(1) For example, with regard to framework, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is written for nations and defines human entitlements to be promoted and protected by all nations. On the other hand, the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists is intended to be applied to professional relationships and emphasizes respect and caring for individuals as well as for families, groups, and communities, with the aim of addressing the balance between the individual and the communal, and allowing for appropriate differences in the interpretation, for example, of such ethical concerns as informed consent, confidentiality, privacy, professional boundaries, and ethical decision-making across cultures.
 
(2) For example, with regard to language, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is more specific and prescriptive because it defines human entitlements to be promoted and protected. In contrast, the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles is more aspirational and inspirational in nature because it describes ethical principles based on shared human values across cultures. It is not meant to be a worldwide code of ethics or a code of conduct that would be agreed upon and adhered to in all countries.
 
(3) For example, with regard to concept, it is noted that the term ‘‘human rights’’ does not appear anywhere in the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists. The reason is that the term is taboo or negatively perceived in some parts of the world and its use in the Universal Declaration would not have been endorsed in those regions. This is not to say, of course, that the Universal Declaration ignores ‘‘human rights’’. Nothing would be further from the truth. Actually, it does speak to human rights, but it does it without ever using the term ‘‘rights’’ or ‘‘human rights’’. For example, under Principle I, we have ‘‘non-discrimination’’. This is the right to ‘‘equality’’. We also have ‘‘fair treatment/due process’’. This is the right to justice.
 
(4) For example, with regard to structure, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is structured around 30 articles that are specific and prescriptive in terms of content because it defines specific human entitlements to be promoted and protected. On the other hand, the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles is structured around ethical principles because its purpose is to highlight shared human values across cultures. For fear of being criticized for being too generic, earlier drafts of the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles included under each ethical principle articles which were aspirational in nature, but which also focused on the fundamental values contained in the principle. The concept of articles was later abandoned because it was a source of confusion for some psychologists who tended to see the document as a universal code of ethics that would not be relevant globally rather than a universal declaration of ethical principles.
 
Reference: Ethical principles and human rights: Building a better world globally. – Janel Gauthier
Counselling Psychology Quarterly, Volume 22, Issue 1, 2009


Believe in Good, Humanist Morality?

If one states they are a humanist and they believe in good, are they for or against a form of axiology or formal axiology? Axiology is the philosophical study of goodness, or value, in the widest sense of these terms. It may be used as the collective term for ethics and aesthetics—philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of value—or the foundation for these fields, and thus similar to value theory and meta-ethics. The word “axiology” (Greek: axios = good, worth, or value; logos = “science”) means “study of good”, “study of worth ” or “study of value.” The axiologists sought to characterize the notion of value in general, of which moral value is only one species. They argue (with notable differences between them), that goodness does not exclusively derive from the will, but exists in objective hierarchies. Formal axiology, the attempt to lay out principles regarding value with mathematical rigor, is exemplified by Robert S. Hartman’s Science of Value. The fundamental principle of Hartman’s Science of Value, functions as an axiom, and can be stated in symbolic logic, is that a thing is good insofar as it exemplifies its concept. To put it another way, “a thing is good if it has all its descriptive properties.” This means, according to Hartman, that the good thing has a name, that the name has a meaning defined by a set of properties, and that the thing possesses all of the properties in the set. A thing is bad if it does not fulfill its description. If it doesn’t fulfill its definition it is terrible (awful, miserable.) A car, by definition, has brakes. A car which accelerates when the brakes are applied is an awful car, since a car by definition must have brakes. A horse, if we called it a car, would be an even worse car, with fewer of the properties of a car. The name we put on things is very important: it sets the norm for how we judge them. If one states they are a humanist, are they for or against a form of universal or realism morality? The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations can be seen as an example of global efforts to bring a universalist, equal and common moral justice to all people, and Moral Universalism is, at least in part, the basis for modern human rights, and an integral part of any Humanist philosophy. Human rights which are commonly considered a “deontological” concept, sometimes described as “duty-” or “obligation-” or “rule-” based ethics, because rules “bind you to your duty.” Which T. M. Scanlon advances the idea that human rights, can only be justified with reference to the consequences of having those rights. Secular morality is the aspect of philosophy that deals with morality outside of religious traditions. Modern examples include humanism, freethinking, and most versions of consequentialism. Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. Consequentialist theories differ in how they define moral goods. Some argue that consequentialist theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, Robert Nozick argues for a theory that is mostly consequentialist, but incorporates inviolable “side-constraints” which restrict the sort of actions agents are permitted to do. Consequentialists can and do differ widely in terms of specifying the Good. Some consequentialists are monists about the Good. Utilitarians, for example, identify the Good with pleasure, happiness, desire satisfaction, or “welfare” in some other sense. Other consequentialists are pluralists regarding the Good. Some of such pluralists believe that how the Good is distributed among persons (or all sentient beings) is itself partly constitutive of the Good, whereas conventional utilitarians merely add or average each person’s share of the Good to achieve the Good’s maximization. Moreover, there are some consequentialists who hold that the doing or refraining from doing, of certain kinds of acts are themselves intrinsically valuable states of affairs constitutive of the Good. An example of this is the positing of rights not being violated, or duties being kept, as part of the Good to be maximized—the so-called “utilitarianism of rights”. None of these pluralist positions erase the difference between consequentialism and deontology. For the essence of consequentialism is still present in such positions: an action would be right only insofar as it maximizes these Good-making states of affairs being caused to exist. However much consequentialists differ about what the Good consists in, they all agree that the morally right choices are those that increase (either directly or indirectly) the Good. Moreover, consequentialists generally agree that the Good is “agent-neutral”. That is, valuable states of affairs are states of affairs that all agents have reason to achieve without regard to whether such states of affairs are achieved through the exercise of one’s own agency or not. “Consequentialism”, as described by Peter Singer, “start not with moral rules, but with goals. They assess actions by the extent to which they further those goals.” Consequentialism contains in itself no explanation for why pleasure or utility are morally good, or why consequences should matter to morality at all. Nor does consequentialism/deontology make any claims about how we know moral facts (if there are any). That is a meta-ethical question, so the question ‘how do we know that it is wrong to kill?’ is not a normative but a meta-ethical question. Some consequentialists and deontologists are also moral realists. Some are not. Moral Realism a similar position to universal morality, that certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of human opinion. that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them. Therefore, moral judgments describe moral facts, which are as certain in their own way as mathematical facts. It is a cognitivist view in that it holds that ethical sentences express valid propositions (and are therefore “truth-apt” i.e. they are able to be true or false), and that they describe the state of the real world. Moral Realism has the advantage of purportedly allowing the ordinary rules of logic to be applied straightforwardly to moral statements, (so that we can say, for example, that a moral belief is false or unjustified or contradictory in the same way we would about a factual belief). It also allows for the resolution of moral disagreements, because if two moral beliefs contradict one another, Moral Realism (unlike some other meta-ethical systems) says that they cannot both be right and so there should be some way of resolving the situation. Two main variants of moral realism are: Ethical Naturalism and Ethical Non-Naturalism.

Ethical Naturalism: holds that there are objective moral properties of which we have empirical knowledge, but that these properties are reducible to entirely non-ethical properties. It assumes cognitivism (the view that ethical sentences express propositions and can therefore be true or false), and that the meanings of these ethical sentences can be expressed as natural properties without the use of ethical terms.

Ethical Non-Naturalism: holds that ethical statements express propositions (in that sense it is also cognitivist) that cannot be reduced to non-ethical statements (e.g. “goodness” is indefinable in that it cannot be defined in any other terms). G. E. Moore claimed that a naturalistic fallacy is committed by any attempt to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition in terms of one or more natural properties (e.g. “good” cannot be defined in terms of “pleasant”, “more evolved”, “desired”, etc). Ethical Intuitionism is a variant of Ethical Non-Naturalism which claims that we sometimes have intuitive awareness of moral properties or of moral truths.

Critics have argued that, while Moral Realism may be able to explain how to resolve moral conflicts, it cannot explain how these conflicts arose in the first place. Others have argued Moral Realism posits a kind of “moral fact” which is non-material and unobservable (in the way as objective material facts are observable), and therefore not accessible to the scientific method. Some philosophers who only believe in the physical world and don’t believe in anything immaterial say that they are also moral realists, but when they describes the type of morality that they believe in, often what they are talking about is the moral beliefs that people have acquired through evolution, which is called evolutionary moral realism. This includes the human instinct to care for the well being of others in one’s own group and the instinct to hold others accountable for transgressions against members of the group. A physicalist/materialist understanding of morality is therefore purely descriptive of human nature within a deterministic system. The physicalist/materialist conception of morality differs from normative moral realism, in which one believes that things ought be a certain way or that people should act in a certain way because such states of affairs or actions would be better, not purely as a function of anything physical such as the instincts people have evolved to have, but at least partially for reasons that ultimately transcend the physical world. For example, if someone believes that oppressing others is always wrong even though humans have an instinctual predisposition to favor their own group over others, and this person does not otherwise explain how this belief is descriptive of something in the physical world, then this implies that this person believes in normative morality. A similar concept to normative ethics is prescriptive ethics, which are those that are supposed to logically commit someone to act a certain way. For example, the normative statement “Murder is wrong” can be restated as “Do not murder”, which is prescriptive. This is similar to how doctors can prescribe medications for one to use. Essentially, prescriptive moral statements are prescribed to people in order for them to act morally. Normative statements simply state the relation a certain state of affairs has to rightness or wrongness without telling anyone how to act. The distinction between descriptive and normative/prescriptive morality is important to understand. One study found that 56% of professional philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism and 28%: anti-realism. Cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker has argued that the game theoretic advantages of ethical behavior support the idea that morality is “out there” in a certain sense (as part of the evolutionary fitness landscape). Journalist Robert Wright has similarly argued that natural selection moves sentient species closer to moral truth as time goes on. Writer Sam Harris has also argued that ethics could be objectively grounded in an understanding of neuroscience. He has admitted to being committed to some form of moral realism (viz. moral claims can really be true or false) and some form of consequentialism (viz. the rightness of an act depends on how it affects the well-being of conscious creatures). Being a moral anti-realist is compatible with having, and following, a moral theory: you just think you have reasons to be moral which are not based on mind-independent facts. For example, you might think convention gives you reason to be moral, where conventionalism is traditionally described as a form of non-realism. see: link A delineation of moral realism into a minimal form, a moderate form, and robust form has been put forward in the literature. The robust model of moral realism commits moral realists to three theses:

The semantic thesis: The primary semantic role of moral predicates (such as “right” and “wrong”) is to refer to moral properties (such as rightness and wrongness), so that moral statements (such as “honesty is good” and “slavery is unjust”) purport to represent moral facts, and express propositions that are true or false (or approximately true, largely false, and so on).

The alethic thesis: Some moral propositions are in fact true.

The metaphysical thesis: Moral propositions are true when actions and other objects of moral assessment have the relevant moral properties (so that the relevant moral facts obtain), where these facts and properties are robust: their metaphysical status, whatever it is, is not relevantly different from that of (certain types of) ordinary non-moral facts and properties.

The minimal model, i.e. moral universalism, leaves off the metaphysical thesis, treating it as matter of contention among moral realists (as opposed to between moral realists and moral anti-realists). This dispute is not insignificant, as acceptance or rejection of the metaphysical thesis is taken by those employing the robust model as the key difference between moral realism and moral anti-realism. Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism or universal morality) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for “all similarly situated individuals”, regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature. Not all forms of moral universalism are absolutist, nor are they necessarily value monist; many forms of universalism, such as utilitarianism, are non-absolutist, and some forms may be value pluralist. A moral theory must be able to solve and thus to be on solid philosophical grounds:

The ontological problem: an adequate theory must account for ethics without assuming the existence of anything that does not actually exist.

The epistemological problem: if we have knowledge of right and wrong, an adequate theory must explain how we acquire such knowledge.

The experience problem: An adequate theory about ethics must account for the phenomenology of moral experience.

The supervenience problem: An adequate theory must be consistent with the supervenient character of evaluative concepts.

The motivation problem: an adequate theory must account for the internal connection between moral belief and motivation (or if there is no such connection, it must offer an alternative account of how morality guides action).

The reason problem: An adequate theory must account for the place of reason in ethics.

The disagreement problem: An adequate theory must explain the nature of ethical disagreement.

References 123456789


Atheism is the reality position.

Theism is the anti-reality position!

I don’t need religion or its fake gods.

I am will to power!