"At the very best, your definition/inference holds only when singular
societal value sets are the criteria for judgment. A general attachment
of 'integrity' with morals is improper." James Rose
Here I think we have an important distinction that is good to make
having in mind the rapid process of globalization that is going on. It
is also relevant for Alex's remarks.
It seems to me that one of the central issues right now is that of a
dialogue. There are importantly different ethical points of view within
different societies. There are different judgments dependent on how you
set your values/priorities. To me, the most reasonable way to solve such
problems is a dialogue. One way or the other human rules of the game are
negotiated. I agree with Steven that it is important to find common
denominators. If you want a dialogue between different value systems
(and what would be the alternative?) it is good to start from what can
be identified as common.
Lawrence Hinman for example identifies the three most fundamental
ethical principles as:
1. Value human life (not killing the members of your group)
2. Taking care of children
3. Trust (that establishes the stable rules for the system)
Naturally the central question is whom you experience as a member of
your group -- humanity or your best friends.
Back to the need of defining (global) ethics, one might say that one
thing happens here, as often in the history of philosophy -- philosophy
is progressing by leaving parts of its territories to the science. It
seems to me good at this stage to make scientific all that may be made
scientific, but not more than that (paraphrasing Einstein's advice to
make simple all the may be simplified, but not more than that). Part of
ethical judgment may be built into expert systems. Simulations may help
to predict the consequences of different ethical positions. (Here the
practical action - what can be done and how -- is on focus).
The question of integrity that appears on many different scales --
integrity of a state related to other states, integrity of a group among
other groups, integrity of an individual in relation to other
individuals, groups, etc. What would be the value of those different
integrities? The answer is emerging as a result of interaction/dialogue
on different levels, and we hopefully are contributing to it.
I like Michael's view:
"The word "health" comes from the same root in language as the word
"wholeness". Psychological health comes from integration, and an
essential part of this is the process of remembering, i.e., bringing the
memory objects into an integrated structure of mind. "
It is a very general idea, and it can be applied in different value
systems and at different levels of granularity.
Best,
Gordana Dodig Crnkovic
http://www.idt.mdh.se/personal/gdc/
James N Rose wrote:
> I would like to challenge this as a category error.
> Integrity does not have to be linked with ethics
> or morals.
>
> A cannibal who remains true to his/her collective's
> code of behavior and eats other people is outside
> the coda of other society's "ethics or morals",
> but has 'integrity' within his/her social order.
>
> At the very best, your defnition/inference holds
> only when singular societal value sets are
> the criteria for judgement. A general attachment
> of 'integrity' with morals is improper.
>
> James Rose
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Michael Leyton (by way of Pedro Marijuan )" wrote:
>
>> So it is by refusing to remember, that the
>> non-integrated person, i.e., the person without integrity,
>> becomes an unethical person.
>>
>> best
>> Michael Leyton
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Fri May 12 08:08:46 2006
