Millions of years of human evolution incline us to survive. Remember that to be good is first to be. Discussions about universal values are pointless if we can't guarantee our survival. The conditions for survival are universal. Think of what you want more than anything else--unless your circumstances are unusual: your next breath! Here's the list in descending order of urgency: clean air, temperature control through clothing and shelter, potable water, nutritious food, basic health care and education. I call these the "seductive six."

Much more than survival, however, we want to flourish. In 5,000 years of writing, we've seen five basic definitions of the grounds for flourishing: rationality as the exercise of reason in pursuit of our goals (Plato and Aristotle); pleasure (hedonists, Bentham and Mill); community (Mo Ti in China, Stoics, Nagarjuna in India, Christ); freedom as creativity (Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, existentialists); meditation as control of the attention (Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism). I call these the "fabulous five." All are critical to guarantee survival.

In our current circumstances, community is perhaps our most critical value. Unless we can view all seven billion humans as members of a single community, our survival will be jeopardized by the increasing power and threat of technology.

Given the brain's propensity for massive reduction, cultures may define themselves by commitment to one of the grounds for flourishing. Perhaps prompted by Plato and Aristotle, Western European and North American cultures fixated on the importance of rationality. The result? Enslavement, colonization and globalization of many parts of the world, with current threats to survival through global climate change, weapons of mass destruction, and the misery of billions in the Global South.

Ancient African ethics in both Egypt and Ethiopia presented more balanced views of flourishing.

My research team has published articles in the journal of Science and Engineering Ethics on these points, showing their practical consequences for engineering education and universities' ethical responsibilities..

Charles Verharen/Philosophy/Howard University

I suggest checking Taylor's (1989) "sources of the self". There you will find different "bedrock" values in different times of history. Avoiding suffering is a core part of modern western moral outlook, as avoiding self-control has been around at least since Plato times (but not in Homer's). In Homer times privileging defending your country over your family was bedrock; nowadays that's not as clear as it used to be. There was a time where fulfilling God's will was bedrock (and his inexistance was simply unintelligible ), whereas trying to fulfill one's own (and everybody's) will as much as possible is bedrock in western modernity...

(For a discussion on how suffering wasn't always as evil as nowadays, check out the work of M. Foucault.)

Hope that helps

Hi Bill,

This is a nice question to motivate thinking about to what extent there are certain universally held values. My thinking is that there most certainly are and that these commonly held values have taken root in the inherent ability of humans to feel empathy for one another. For instance, feelings of empathy explain why there is transcultural consensus that inflicting needless pain and suffering on children and other innocents is evil. Gwen

Hi Ian,

The fact that there are rites of passage that are "deemed barbaric by other cultures" is beside the point. The very fact that something is a "rite of passage" in a certain culture implies that the practice is not being engaged in to inflict pain and suffering, rather these societies/cultures are engaging in important rituals for their respective cultures or religious traditions. Hence, the existence of such rituals is totally irrelevant to the point I made about a transcultural consensus among humankind not to inflict NEEDLESS pain that arises from the ability of humans to feel empathy. What is deemed "necessary" pain (or a necessary inconvenience in order to observe certain important cultural traditions) will, of course, vary from culture to culture. The ritual of circumcision (male or female) is not engaged in to inflict pain. Likewise, when a rite of passage entails (as for Native Americans) existing in the wilderness and using one's own abilities to secure food and drink; this rite is not engaged in to inflict pain, starvation, or death upon the young Brave; it is to teach him certain survival skills that will serve him well in his manhood. Ian, you are engaging in judgmental and tautological thinking as well as circular reasoning.

Gwen

P.S. As for your comment about state action (such as capital punishment in the U.S. or genocide in various countries?), I fail to see the relevance of "atrocities of state" in this discussion. Additionally, please do not attribute to me a statement that there is a "transcultural consensus about morality". Good grief, I am a sociologist of culture -- take a look at my stuff on RG, at least half of which deals with multiculturalism and religious diversity! Moreover, your less than charitable comments about barbaric (uncivilized?) practices in "other" cultures demonstrates all too clearly that there is no consensus about morality across cultures.

Hello all,

I would go with these:

Wisdom

Understanding

Right Judgement

Courage

Knowledge

Reverence

Wonder and awe in God’s presence

However, what Josephson had highlighted as the 12 Ethical Principles for Business Executives can be easily applied to anyone: honesty and integrity, promise keeping, loyalty, fairness, caring (concern for others), respect for others, law abiding, commitment to excellence, leadership, reputation and morale, and accountability.

Josephson article can be reached at: http://josephsoninstitute.org/business/blog/2010/12/12-ethical-principles-for-business-executives/

Regards

Theodora Issa

Theodora you have three of Plato's four cardinal virtues here in your list. I am wondering what is the distinction, as regards emphasis, which you make between Wisdom and Understanding?

Hi Bill,

I still feel that there is much to be said for the values proposed by Beauchamps and Childres for a system of medical ethics. These could be taken as part of a set of Bedrock Values. There are four:

Dignity and Autonomy of the individual

Non Maleficence (do no harm)

Beneficence (doo good), and

Justice

I believe in the west at least we need two further Bedrock Values. They are:

The Precautionary Principle, and

Openness/ Transparency/Accountability

These seem to work well for professional life, but additional values such as those mentioned by Theodora above are essential in ones personal life.

http://www.ukcen.net/index.php/ethical_issues/ethical_frameworks/the_four_principles_of_biomedical_ethics

Millions of years of human evolution incline us to survive. Remember that to be good is first to be. Discussions about universal values are pointless if we can't guarantee our survival. The conditions for survival are universal. Think of what you want more than anything else--unless your circumstances are unusual: your next breath! Here's the list in descending order of urgency: clean air, temperature control through clothing and shelter, potable water, nutritious food, basic health care and education. I call these the "seductive six."

Much more than survival, however, we want to flourish. In 5,000 years of writing, we've seen five basic definitions of the grounds for flourishing: rationality as the exercise of reason in pursuit of our goals (Plato and Aristotle); pleasure (hedonists, Bentham and Mill); community (Mo Ti in China, Stoics, Nagarjuna in India, Christ); freedom as creativity (Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, existentialists); meditation as control of the attention (Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism). I call these the "fabulous five." All are critical to guarantee survival.

In our current circumstances, community is perhaps our most critical value. Unless we can view all seven billion humans as members of a single community, our survival will be jeopardized by the increasing power and threat of technology.

Given the brain's propensity for massive reduction, cultures may define themselves by commitment to one of the grounds for flourishing. Perhaps prompted by Plato and Aristotle, Western European and North American cultures fixated on the importance of rationality. The result? Enslavement, colonization and globalization of many parts of the world, with current threats to survival through global climate change, weapons of mass destruction, and the misery of billions in the Global South.

Ancient African ethics in both Egypt and Ethiopia presented more balanced views of flourishing.

My research team has published articles in the journal of Science and Engineering Ethics on these points, showing their practical consequences for engineering education and universities' ethical responsibilities..

Charles Verharen/Philosophy/Howard University

Evil or no evil, does not matter unless you consider yourself accountable. Your belief in God and the day of judgement make you to differentiate between evil or no evil. That is why the Holy Quraan says" No matter if you are muslim, jew, christian or sabee if you believe in God and the day of judgement, you will be rewarded for your good deeds and you need not fear or worry". without Accountability this world seems to be aimless which is not possible. Thanks

Philosophers and ethical theorists have focused on two main possibilities for foundational ethical values that assist in decision making.

One major possibility focuses on the importance of the consequences of one's actions on everyone affected, and under such a view, the ethically correct action is the one with the best balance of consequences. J. S. Mill's Utilitarianism, which focuses on increasing happiness and decreasing unhappiness for all, is a nice example of one such consequence-based view.

A second major possibility focuses on respecting the free choices of others and allowing others to make choices that are not distorted by deception, coercion, or force. Immanuel Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is the classic foundation of that view.

Some philosophers prefer one of these views to the other, but my view is that the two view together provide a powerful way of thinking about what is right or wrong.

Thesis : Monotheisme

Antithesis: Polytheisme

Synthesis: stucked then become Atheism

In this world there is three group monotheism, polytheism and atheism. Debate, discussion and dialogue will make us getting the absolute truth among the relative truth. All of you can follow the dialogue Bible and Qur'an in the light of Science between William Campble and Zakir .

Special for atheism, Prophet Abraham said : There is no God except Allah

There is no God : atheis

Except Allah : Monotheism

So, for people having no belief (atheis) is the first step to select monotheism

Congratulation for all people having no belief (atheis) because you had followed the first step of Abraham ,... just continued to get complete

There is no God ........ forever atheis

and then continue with ..... except my ego or my self..... then become false monotheism.......

other people said..... except money

also become false monotheism

Conclusion: false monotheism is polytheism.

Abraham is father of Ismaeel, Isaac, Moses, Jesus/Isa and Mohammad

But today, there is claim that Abraham is Jews only, other people said Abraham is Christan only, and Abraham is Islam only.

This is example of bedrock ethics in religion

You know we have beasts in our society. What is evil to them? No God means beasts can rule. Will it be acceptable to humanity?

Humanity has decreased become animal rationale. Animal has no conscience. Animal rationale had ability more than animal as the beast using weapon and technology

Thank you for the discussion - a bit everywhere... well, I have been away celebrating Christmas and the New Year - hope you had a happy one...

I can now respond to the question raised by Bill Johnson on my first response - well, what I would see in relation to wisdom and understanding - we need to have wisdom to have an understanding and a good understanding to understand what we hear and read and NOT take everything on board without proper consideration, critical thinking and reflection... as not everything in the world is RIGHT - and we should not be taken away by anything that is usually untrue but is being sold as true!?

All the best.

Thomas Aquinas tackles this issue in Question 3 of De Veritate in a manner I think still works extremely well. He provides a series of 10 simple logical arguments which combine to show the essential characteristic of all being over time is the tendency to fulfilment of its potential. Within this analysis evil emerges as that which frustrates the fulfilment of potential or which reduces being. This definition can be used to analyse any act or ethical construct, irrespective of metaphysical or religious position. It asks nothing more than one accept it's better to be alive than dead or that flourishing is better than decay. I guess it would be possible to argue against these, but Aquinas would reply that to prefer non-being over being is to act contrary to your essential nature as a living being and is thus irrational. It is this position which has come to form the basis of modern Natural Law theory and provides us with a mechanism to judge the actions of people within other cultures or legal regimes, as we seen such things as the concept of universal human rights.

Hi, Brandt

Your definition of evil: that "which frustrates the fulfillment of potential or which reduces being." Point 1: Aquinas' language is so abstract that its meaning would be difficult to determine. Its abstraction is a virtue, of course, because philosophy's forte is abstraction. The brain is a "reducing machine" in Huxley's words, and philosophy is the brain's operation at peak performance. Point 2. You have to reduce the abstraction to details that can be used to assess one ethics system against others.

My post above on November 13, 2013 performs the reduction in a manner consistent with Aquinas' list of basic goods such as community, education and the like.

These goods constitute the substance of a "natural law" as you say. Aquinas finds the origin of that law in a nature ordained by a god.

Against Aquinas, Nietzsche claims that ethics have their origins in crises. Humanity now faces three potentially catastrophic crises: weapons of mass destruction, global climate change and the misery of billions in the Global South.

Ethical responses to these three potential catastrophes cannot be grounded in philosophical belief systems that are themselves grounded in divisive religious beliefs.

Virtually everyone in the world must sign on to an ethics that has the power to ensure that we pass the gift of life on to our children'[s children in better shape than we have received it.

Non violence. Honesty & compassion towards all. Altruism.

They can all exist without God and are among the most human of all qualities.

@ Jim Malone -

I was quite busy last October and didn't look up the article link you placed here at that time. It is both short and excellent. I found it helpful and thought-provoking. Thank you, and thanks for your additions of the Precautionary Principle, and Openness/ Transparency/Accountability. These seem especially suited to medical settings. Is that your milieu?

@ Charles - how about some links or at least titles for what your research team has produced in the regard you mention above?

@ Vaughn - this is not meant as "push back" so much as a question. Utilitarianism is based on a calculation (if we use Bentham) and on happiness (if we use Mill). Deontology is based on both universalizabiliy (Categorical Imperative first formulation) and the Means-End Principle (Categorical Imperative second formulation). These are formulae and calculations for action-based ethical theories, but they are not values per se. What actual values would you propose as universal Vaughn?

@Brandt - I am a bit of a Thomist and an Aristotelian myself. I am looking for actual values here. In Thomas we find for instance: “Good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” (ST Ques. 94, Art. 2) That is a value, although it is simply Aquinas’ statement of the Aristotelian meaning of ‘good’ (NE, Bk. I, 1094b, 3). Do you have any actual values you would propose as universal?

@ Denise - am I right in assuming that your usage of altruism comes from evolutionary psychology? What are your sources for non-violence, honesty, and compassion?

Bill, thanks for the query. Attached is an open source article just published in the journal of Science and Engineering Ethics.

Also attached is our edited book on Ethiopian philosophy. One of my articles in there compares ancient Egyptian and Ethiopian ethics. Early intimations of bio- and eco-centric ethics in those systems. Whoops! Won't let me attach 2 documents. I'll send later.

And Brandt, I'm wondering what Aquinas would say about the mass extinctions in Elizabeth Kolbert's new book, especially the possibly imminent 6th anthropogenic extinction. Divine intervention? Or Leibniz's tack: creation was the very best job possible under trying circumstances?

Bill, here's the volume on Ethiopian philosophy.

Yes Bill, even though a physicist by background, I'vespent almost all of my professional life in a medical environment. At present, apart from the well recognised newer bioethical concerns, there are many problems that need a more dilligent application of one or more or the well established ethical system. One of the areas I am working in concerns the ethical framework for protecting both patients and staff from unnecessary radiation hazards. Much good is achieved with CT scans and other forms of radiation, but we also need a framework to ensure that the cost of this good is not too high. The problem is global and hence the attempt to identify a set of values that wll be acceptable in all cultures (see above).

Yes, there are bedrock ethics but even they will be subject to fluctuations in the degree or rightness and wrongness over cultures and time. Ethics were not constructed so we can feel morally superior to one another, they are simply a framework within which we can be civilised. Since civilisation is only the ability to live in cities, rather than any higher aesthetic or moral achievement we needed simple tools to achieve it.

As we moved into sedentary 'civilisation' surpluses were needed to feed non-productive mouths, hierarchies developed to allow the cities to grow and laws developed to maintain the status quo. A propensity to kill one another obviously needed to be controlled and it was an established 'wrong' to do so. The generation of surpluses generated ownership so theft became a wrong, structure in society led to many of the societal norms we have today nearly 10,000 years later.

Most cultures that formed 'civilisations' adopted almost identical baseline ethics and from them laws. Cultural distortions in the development of such ethics may be more difficult to grasp but it is not only in the monotheistic societies that developed in the Middle East that the 'ten commandments' appear. The basic building blocks for all societal law look very much the same whichever civilisation they came from.

These two articles may be useful:

Hausken, K. (1996), “Ethics and Efficiency in Organizations,” International Journal of Social Economics 23, 9, 15-40.

Hausken, K. (1996), “Self-Interest and Sympathy in Economic Behavior,” International Journal of Social Economics 23, 7, 4-24.

Article Ethics and efficiency in organizations

Data Self-Interest and Sympathy in Economic Behavior Internationa...

These look interesting Kjell. Thank you for posting them here. I have skimmed them and will read them more thoroughly and slowly when I am done with my current writing project. I am working with an impending deadline. Do you yourself have any values that you would propose as being (in Kai Nielsen's terminology) "bedrock" values? 

Too much disagreement exists about bedrock values, as you know, exemplified with Hobbes, Hume, Adam Smith in the two articles (suggested above 22 hours ago). The bedrock is possibly what you choose it to be, or some empirical study reveals it to be. The following article illustrates disagreement between e.g. Kant, Nietzsche, Clausewitz. The reference list and possibly Table 1 should be readable (text in German; most references in English):

Hausken, K. (1995), “Krieg, Ethik und Politiken (War, Ethics and Politics),” Berliner Debatte INITIAL: Zeitschrift fuer Sozialwissenschaftlichen Diskurs 6, 79-88.

Article Krieg, Ethik und Politiken

Hello Kjell,

I'm afraid I cannot decode the actual values in Krieg, Ethik und Politiken, although I see the differing names associated with the columns. I am of German ancestry but my languages are French, Spanish, Greek, and Hebrew. 

As regards the previous papers: I didn't see specific values addressed in them. They seem to address the motivations behind an ethic (e.g. self-love, self-interest, sympathy, various incentives, reputation, happiness, prudence, strength, the will to power, etc.) but not specific, trans-cultural values. In my question I quote Kai Nielsen's bedrock basic values which he believes do not need to be warranted by faith or any other legitimizing agency. He believes that to be a healthy human being is to be the sort of a creature that condemns wife-beating, child-molesting, and the torture of the innocent. Can you yourself propose any such bedrock values?

I interpret (in these three papers and elsewhere) values broadly to comprise e.g. teleological and deontological values, and include e.g. self-love, self-interest, sympathy, various incentives, reputation, happiness, prudence, strength, the will to power, etc. Yes, a subset of such values may be warranted, and others may not be warranted, by faith or some legitimizing agency. Kai Nielsen's bedrock basic values may very well be supported by 99.99% of the population in the western world, at least as a hypothesis until we test the values empirically in various cultures. However, I doubt that one will get universal agreement across time and space “that to be a healthy human being is to be the sort of a creature that condemns wife-beating, child-molesting, and the torture of the innocent.” I respect of course Kai Nielsen's and others’ claims of this kind. All such attempts are good and may enhance our understanding. It would be nice if we could agree across humankind, but history shows people who happen to believe, at least as it appears, that one can be a healthy human being without subscribing to Kai Nielsen's bedrock basic values. Fortunately, humankind is able to lock up in jail at least some people subscribing to non-traditional values making trouble in our societies. Nietzsche’s distinction between master morality and slave morality reveals some value tensions. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs , express another approach for what constitutes a healthy human being. If I were to suggest bedrock values, I think Bentham’s summum bonum is a good first approach, although it fails to come to terms with weighting of each individual’s happiness. Another approach to addressing bedrock values is to try to lift the third world out of its misery. I am not sure I address your actual challenge. These are extremely complicated issues where history has shown that humans rarely agree.

I was under the impression that Bentham dismissed Cicero's idea of a Summum Bonum as "consummate nonsense", thus I am unaware of what you are referring to as his Summum Bonum. Where can I read about this Kjell?

Perhaps I have worded the question poorly. I am not actually asking for advocacy of Nielsen's values. I am just asking for what you personally think might be good candidates or suggestions for universal values. Nielsen was just an example of the thought process I am looking for. For example, Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen have tried to formulate a list of capabilities as being basic to human well-being. Rushworth Kidder and Hans Kung have created what I personally refer to as "least common denominator" ethics, whereby they seek to establish short lists of basic values. These are the sort of values I am looking for. I'm less interested in Hume and Hobbes think and more interested in what you personally think should be basic bedrock human values. Common values on such lists are prohibitions against rape, murder, and torture of innocent people. Clitorodectomy (FGM), honor killings, sati, and recruiting of children as "child soldiers" would seem to be some obvious things to prohibit or condemn in all cultures. I'm wondering what values (either negative or positive) you believe are basic and "bedrock" (Nielsen's term)?

God is nothing to do with ethics.  Ethics is simply the study of right and wrong or more accurately as JL Mackie put it "the invention of right and wrong".

There is no need for a God or any other imaginary character to formulate functional ethical principles.  The insertion of deity is simply to superimpose some form of unquestionable authority on an ethical position, which naturally deconstructs on the realisation that the deity is a fantasy.

Ethics survive the demise of religion and religion is no guarantee of benificent values.  in a nutshell religion and Gods are about imposing control over people, not teaching them how to be good people.  

Bill and Susan,

Thanks for the upvote Susan.

Since the original discussion sparked off a few years ago, we have written up the approach I referred to in a short answer to your question.  It is on a pragmatic ethics set for the practice of medical radiology.  The paper is open access and is available from my ResearchGate page at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291357302_Pragmatic_ethical_basis_for_radiation_protection_in_diagnostic_radiology 

The approach is based on a broadly accepted set of values and two extra ones (prudence and honesty, the latter in the sense of being open with people).

Jim

Article Pragmatic ethical basis for radiation protection in diagnost...

Re Bill Johnson’s follow-up question yesterday, both Cicero and Bentham are unclear about Summum Bonum, but at least Bentham tries to link to utilitarianism. Although I personally subscribe to the values you have mentioned, and a few others such as e.g. peer review, democracy, transparency, free-market capitalism with proper government controls, what I personally believe is not particularly interesting, and what I state in this sentence is not precise. More interesting are in which direction humankind moves with respect to bedrock values, and which mechanisms we implement to ensure movement into bedrock values preferred by the majority or preferred by many inclined to reason about bedrock values. The future of humankind is what matters, and is at stake. Examples of mechanisms are increased education, especially for women, ensuring women’s rights, and decrease of poverty. As such mechanisms get implemented, bedrock values respected by most humans also likely change. At least, such change cannot be ruled out. Change takes time. Some studies have asked people to rank which values they respect. One study (I don’t recall the reference; older than 1990) did so for some 20 instrumental and some 20 end values. Assume we make a list of some 1000 (or some tractable number) potential bedrock values. Then we ask people in various cultures to rank these, with suitable procedures, e.g. so that organizations or chosen people in various cultures strip the numbers of values down to sets of values tractable by individuals. Once the rankings have been determined for humankind’s cultures, we may be able to determine e.g. "least common denominator" ethics. Problems with this "least common denominator" ethics, or any such combined ranking, are that we cannot expect the ranking to be universal through time, or be equally respected by all. At least, universality will likely be hard or impossible to prove. Humankind evolves. Organisms evolve to cope with technological change and complexities in the environment. As humans evolve, bedrock values likely also evolve, or evolution of bedrock values cannot be ruled out. If a meteorite were to hit earth and erase a fraction of humans e.g. in areas were honor killings are prevalent, a subsequent study will likely cause a new ranking position for the abolishment of honor killings. Disruption of bedrock values may also come from within, e.g. from a new dictator, a new religious leader, new technology, new fashion trends. Regarding the role of empathy for humankind, empathy and group cooperation have been essential for the development of the human race. The role of empathy for humankind x million years into the future may be larger or smaller than today dependent on a variety of factors. We may become different from today. Many challenges lie ahead for humankind as we gradually and continuously strive for universally agreed upon bedrock values.