>
> Jeff wrote:
> > > Or... ethics are simple rules which express our basic beliefs.
> >
> Stuart:
> > I think that more closely defines morays or even morals.
> > Ethics are long term survival concepts with minimal destruction, or,
> rationality towards the highest level of survival.
>
> > Values are a personal viewpoint or code , and I don't see how they have
> > much to do with ethics if you accept the idea of ethics as optimum
> > survival, or the greatest good for the greatest number.
>
> > The reference point is optimum survival for the individual, the
> > group, mankind , other life forms, the physical universe, etc.
> > Anywhere in this universe , even if cultures are different ,
> > the nature of destruction and survival are the same .
>
> Stuart, you seem to be looking at definitions of terms such as "ethics",
> "values", "morays", "morals" and seem to be using them differently from
> me.
> I agree that I have not supplied many concrete definitions and that I may
> be indiscriminantly using some of these interchangeably. Please give us
> your own definitions, and I'll try below (see bottom).
The above are my definition of ethics. Applying ethics to life
optimizes survival for all (me , us, all people , other life forms , the
physical universe, spiritual existance, and the infinit or God), not
just for the individual
>
> First, I'd like to clarify what I hear you saying. Please correct me if
> I'm wrong. I don't understand how you can think that values are not
> related to ethics, but again this may depend on definitions (see below).
> You seem to feel that "optimum long term survival" is of high (highest?)
> value and therefore it is ethical to work toward it. You also mention
> "minimal destruction" and "the greatest good for the greatest number."
are you saying that
> their value is in there ability to enhance chances for survival?
Yes
If it is
> the latter, then your view seems to be that ones main obligation is to
> survive and promote the survival of the species (?)
No , All the arias of survival (me, you , them, that tree growing in your yard, etc.)
> greatest number" (not just humans) is the way to go. Therefore enhancing
> the chances for survival of as many other species as possible is of high
> value. I like this more, personally. It's a good start. It brings up
> the question of how do you decide which species is "more important" when
> there is conflict.
> A tough question.
The answer for me is which species enhances the survival of the
greatest number of other species, as opposed to , which species is
the most destructive to all of the above listed arias through which
all things survive.
>
>
> Stuart:
> > Can't the tool be statics? Are your stats on working towards the
> > survival of people and things going up or going down? Are we
> > helping or hurting and are we effective at it or just spinning our
> > wheels?
>
> I guess it depends on what you mean by "survival". I guess I'm not clear
> on what you mean by "optimum survival". It almost seems like an oxymoron
> to me; I think of survival as a minimum level. I don't want to just
> survive; I want to flourish.
I see, ok, I mean optimum survival or optimum continuation of you,
me, us, them, that thing over there, etc. So prosper and flurish
would be optimum survival . So then ethics are attitudes followed
by actions that show a sence of responsability for survival.
Perhaps I can substitute "health of a
> population" or some similar idea.
Sure
>
> ERIC'S DEFINITIONS:
>
> ethics: basic underlying principles and values used to govern choices
Yes but choices that lead to the happiest, healthiest (optimum )
survival for all things
Stuart
