Reductionism in Ethics

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

If they are ethical values, and not some other irrelevance, then they all valid for the purpose. They describe the human condition, or ethics as a whole. They all relate together, and can therefore be portrayed graphically. We may then realize what the choice is. Answer the question of whether the opposite of something simple is something complex, or compound?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Food is not a value. But it is efficacious for keeping us alive. There would be no ethical values without sapient creatures such as ourselves being alive. But it is in life that ethics exists. Naturally, most people in health wish to be alive so as to enjoy it. Life as against chaos and extinction may be considered the bedrock of ethics. The interesting question is how we define ethics from that point forward. That requires a knowledge of all the possible or understood values that exist, and the choice they exhibit, in forms of society.

To answer my own question. The opposite of simple is compound. It my firm contention that there are simple values, which are therefore opposed to compound values. They are also as everyone would understand opposed in meaning.

Quoting RW Standing

Values describe the human condition and all of them are valid.

I can imagine a, somewhat, objective standard for ethics. As a possible example - an ethical standard should promote a stable society that provides security and adequate resources for the members of that society.

Quoting RW Standing

Keep your replies in plain English.

Yeah, well, demanding a particular type of response is not really the way things work around here. Seems a bit tendentious to me.

It is my contention, that simple values are such, because they do not actually exist, other than as concepts. On the other hand, compound values do exist as forms of or expressions of society, or community, or personal relationships.

Reply to RW Standing

Seems to me that at least some of our values can be traced back to inborn physiological reactions. One of the definitions I found for "values" on the web is "judgment of what is important in life."

This comes from the Stanford Children's Health webpage:

Newborn-Reflexes

What reflexes should be present in a newborn?

Reflexes are involuntary movements or actions. Some movements are spontaneous, occurring as part of the baby's usual activity. Others are responses to certain actions. Reflexes help identify normal brain and nerve activity. Some reflexes occur only in specific periods of development. The following are some of the normal reflexes seen in newborn babies:

• Root reflex. This reflex begins when the corner of the baby's mouth is stroked or touched. The baby will turn his or her head and open his or her mouth to follow and "root" in the direction of the stroking. This helps the baby find the breast or bottle to begin feeding.
• Suck reflex. Rooting helps the baby become ready to suck. When the roof of the baby's mouth is touched, the baby will begin to suck. This reflex does not begin until about the 32nd week of pregnancy and is not fully developed until about 36 weeks. Premature babies may have a weak or immature sucking ability because of this. Babies also have a hand-to-mouth reflex that goes with rooting and sucking and may suck on fingers or hands.
• Moro reflex. The Moro reflex is often called a startle reflex because it usually occurs when a baby is startled by a loud sound or movement. In response to the sound, the baby throws back his or her head, extends out the arms and legs, cries, then pulls the arms and legs back in. A baby's own cry can startle him or her and trigger this reflex. This reflex lasts about 5 to 6 months.
• Tonic neck reflex. When a baby's head is turned to one side, the arm on that side stretches out and the opposite arm bends up at the elbow. This is often called the "fencing" position. The tonic neck reflex lasts about 6 to 7 months.
• Grasp reflex. Stroking the palm of a baby's hand causes the baby to close his or her fingers in a grasp. The grasp reflex lasts until about 5 to 6 months of age.
• Babinski reflex. When the sole of the foot is firmly stroked, the big toe bends back toward the top of the foot and the other toes fan out. This is a normal reflex up to about 2 years of age.
• Step reflex. This reflex is also called the walking or dance reflex because a baby appears to take steps or dance when held upright with his or her feet touching a solid surface.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that at least some of these actions reflect the babies "judgement" of what is important in life.

A survivalist community requires only a minimal ethic. Anything more, if badly constructed, may be dangerous. Vegans do not survive where there is only meat. A survival ethic would be similar to the well known Decalogue. Not to later offshoots of more sophistication that may not be understood even today. It is where society evolves and affluence makes niceties possible that something more than our current binary or single-dimension model is possible, and even required.

There appears to be a useful broad definition of the term Goods in economics. Ultimately ethics relates to the way we use these goods, including ourselves. Culture is perhaps the principal Good we have in a stable society. Its difference from other Goods is that it is what defines people in their community, differently from other communities. It is the basis of Diversity, which may be considered a prime value. How we value or undermine diversity is a prime feature of ethical choice.

Core Values that are being employed here are those that are irreducible, and not expressed in the form of rules. Freedom is a value. Equality is a value. We will tell the truth in all situations is a very dubious rule. Culture, as previously mentioned, is about things like arts and crafts, fashion, folk customs, and ethical values should be kept outside it as entirely as possible. Pragmatism in the sense of practicality is a value.

There are naturally popular ethical values, with perhaps a plethora of variations in terminology. Freedom or Liberty, Equality, Tolerance, all mean something slightly different, but they all stand together. They stand opposed to various forms of tyranny, bigotry and hierarchy. Or, the divine right of kings, for instance.
But there is nothing intrinsic in the term, freedom, to say what kind of freedom and for what purpose it may be used.
Tyranny on the other hand is not ambiguous, it represents forms of absolutism that may yet be realized in the coming world of surveillance.

Nom doubt ethics as we understand the same, has evolved in various interesting ways. It is how we might use and improve our ethic that is the present point at hand.

So here's what happens in my head when I read your post:

Quoting RW Standing

Reductionism in ethics is a total folly.

I think, "Hmm . . . okay--I'm not sure exactly what you'd call 'reductionism in ethics' or why you think it's a 'total folly,' but I'm sure that's about to be explained in the rest of this paragraph." (That last part, due to experience on this board, I think a bit facetiously, unfortunately.)

Asking a person if he believes in Freedom, for instance, is bound to be tendentious.

I think, "Okay, I'm not getting what this has to do with defining what you consider to be 'reductionism in ethics' or why you think it's a 'total folly' . . . but okay, I'll work with it for what it is for a moment," and then I think, "Sure, asking people if they believe in x is bound to be tendentious, especially in a philosophical context, but that's pretty much true for all x, isn't it?"

Values describe the human condition and all of them are valid.

Here I just think, "Huh?? 'Values describe the human condition'? . . . I'm not sure what the heck that would be saying/what it would amount to. And 'valid'? I don't really use the term 'valid' that way . . . but in any event, what would make values valid or not, and why would they all be valid???"

And then in the back of my mind, I'm also both saying:

"What does this have to do with 'reductionism in ethics,' whether that's 'total folly,'?" AND "What does it have to do with 'believing in freedom' and whether that's bound to be tendentious?"

I start getting annoyed that we've had three sentences in a row that don't really seem to be connected to each other, and that are all vague or so obvious as to be kind of pointless to say (the tendentious thing).

But any one value is modified or limited or directed by another.

Again I think, "Huh??" You'd have to explain and try to support what you're claiming here because it strikes me as very dubious.

There is no point in discussing values until the whole is portrayed graphically.

I think, "Displayed graphically???? What in the world?"

End-values or elemental forms of society then show themselves.

"End-values??" "Elemental forms of society???"

My eyes just kind of start glazing over at this point.

In the ultimate analysis we simply have a choice between them,

"We have a choice between values" is like "Do you believe in x is bound to be tendentious."

By now, I'm wondering why the title of the thread and the first sentence promised to be about "reductionism in ethics," because none of the rest of the post seemed to be about that.

Keep your replies in plain English.

That I got a laugh out of at least.



So that's what happens when I read posts like this.

Quoting T Clark

As a possible example - an ethical standard should promote a stable society that provides security and adequate resources for the members of that society.

What's objective about that?

Our parliament is excellent with MPs who extol liberty and tolerance quite unreservedly. Except at the end they drop in a note, ‘within the law’. Nobody would reject the rule of law. But it is exactly what China affirms today, as in Hong Kong, and we know how draconian Chinese law is. The rule of law, duty, responsibility, and no doubt more values, stand together. They also stand opposed to what I would conveniently call Anarchism, as a society of personal autonomy. In economic terms the free market let loose.

There are a number of diagrammatic representations of how ethical values relate - supposedly. Any such, or a new version or description, would be useful. I am not finished yet!!!

Religions across the world today tend is to extol various forms empathy and fraternity, or altruism, but usually do so on the basis of obedience to their ‘god’. More extreme perhaps is the idea that we were ‘made’ by god, and therefore serve him and whatever he wants of us. A peculiar mixture of values.
It might be thought that egoism or self-interest, although not exactly egotism, is opposed to altruism. However, some philosophers appear to believe in it as a foundation of morality, or at least in its outcome. There is nothing more odd than people.

Long lists of ‘core values’ have been assembled, but it is obvious that they are seen more as ‘core virtues’ which is not the same statement. Sensibly, the opinion of what is virtuous must be based on an assembly of values, including antonyms. These cannot be seen as existing independently, but form a whole structure that portrays moral choice. In reality that choice, so far as any exists, will be prejudiced by our own individual nature – from infancy no doubt.
After all, we live in a world today in which illogical good nature can be a danger to society and human survival.

Anarchism in the sense of a society based autonomous individuals, may be an ideal for many people. It is derived from a belief in the ambiguous value of Freedom [Equality etc] and in the ambiguous value of Egoism or even Egotism. It does not believe in anything more than minimalist law. The egalitarian freedom of individuals and their possessions.
Tyranny or at least Authoritarianism, as a form of society, is based on the same egotism allied to a belief in law and order or duty. It and those who belong to it do not believe in individual liberty. Their society or state may be personified as a law-making god.
Altruism as a form of society, is based on the previous idea of freedom and also of corporate responsibility and duty. It does not believe in more than a sufficiency of self-interest. The freedom of thought and shared benefit.
All three forms of society are obviously opposed to social breakdown and unnecessary war, or environmental destruction.
All of which can be expanded and be made more particular, in the contrast of one form of society with the others. It may be evident, for instance, that altruist society will have rights and reciprocal duties, whereas the authoritarian state will have minimal rights, and the anarchistic society will have little but individual rights.
It may be remarked that some people may well believe Jesus of Nazareth was a rebel altruist.

Quoting Terrapin Station

What's objective about that?

I can think of lots of measures that could act as a metric for social well-being - life expectancy, unemployment rate, crime rate, distribution of wealth, .... Here's a link to map purporting to show the distribution of happiness in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report#/media/File:Happiness_score_of_countries_according_to_the_World_Happiness_Report_(2018).png

Reply to T Clark

What I'm asking is not what's objective about life expectancy, etc.

I'm asking what's objective about "we should have x (re life expectancy, for example) as a goal."

There has been a division between politics and ethics that is probably the product of a semi-authoritarian government. Politicians may well keep their domestic life private, but it depends on what form of society we espouse and have, to what degree it is private. Anything that is truly private, is barely more than personal fad. Where there is effect on society then it is a matter of social ethics and not entirely private.
Authoritarian government and society would be extraordinarily totalitarian for it to control all aspects of domestic life. As long as citizens know their place and serve as required.
Anarchistic society would indeed have autonomous citizens and their families, left to live or die as they please. No doubt these citizens believing themselves highly moral, and tolerant.
Altruistic society, not defining that as any form of self-sacrifice in normal circumstances, would quite logically treat the family and marriage as the bedrock of society. Anything else would be open to debate and highly contentious.

Natural and legal rights are a great invention, the former a protection against the divine right of kings, perhaps. The great feature of natural rights is that every philosopher has had his own version, no doubt serving his natural prejudices. It is perhaps more logical to accept human rights as the product of society, as against individuals and government. The modern folk lore. The problem goes away if it is accepted that are three [?] essential forms of society, above that of the animal world or a state of moral chaos. Authoritarian society is biased towards duties. Anarchism to the right of self-interest. Altruism to the rights of social responsibility. What is ‘right or wrong’ is confined within each of those sources. The idea that the natural world has either duties or rights is absurd – other than the inbred ‘right’ or impulse for survival. There are no doubt passions and sentiments in animal life, and particularly sapient life. It is how those disparate feelings are controlled and channelled that is the stuff of ethics. This does leave open the one great question of existence, that of the explanation rather than the cause for the conscious mind, as against the mechanics of life

On the basis of Freedom and associated values with their antonyms:
This would form a three sided figure
1 Altruism < Freedom > 2 Anarchism < Ego > 3 Tyranny < Duty > 1 Altruism

As an average individual with a natural interest in ethical-political matters. Not a student of philosophy. It barely surprises me that our world has long been in chaos and conflict. It only requires a cursory view of the subject in Wiki and elsewhere to realize that philosophers themselves are in chaos. The reason for this may perhaps be immediately deduced. Ethical pronouncements of almost every kind, and Values in particular, are couched in the form of Rules or complex statements that assume more than one thing, often many, and often entirely unclear. In fact at worst very little is said that is not in the form of a personal prejudice and vanity that determines the purpose of the rule.
To be entirely cynical, nature probably has not the slightest interest in human beings, and fundamental ethics might give us the boot.
The first step might better be to take the empty and arid words that are employed as ethical and other values and use them as concepts that can be related to the world, as a whole and eventually more specific parts of the natural world, and determine what sense these core values make when viewed as a whole.

1 Harmony < Equality > 2 Anomie < Discord > 3 Elitism < Diversity > 1 Harmony
Harmony versus Discord
Elitism versus Equality
Anomie versus Diversity [Uniformity versus Diversity]
It may be considered that it is mere chance that values can be selected so as to link together. Illustrating core values that combine so as to indicate social conditions. Such a coincidence beggars belief.
Obviously, the terms used in this example may be improved.
Anomie may be thought a condition of deconstructed uniformity.

It is evident enough that moral rules need to be made applicable to classes of subjects. Men, women, children, antelopes and zebras – or broadly nature other than humanity. But the core values, such as equality, freedom, diversity, are all universals. However they have their antonyms or opposites as universal values also. It is the way they relate that defines their limitations. Forms of society exist within those universal values. Such as altruism, which is a combination of values.
It would be absurd to employ equality so as to portray all people as morally equal. Even anarchist society will have its criminal law, while tending to provide equality to a wide and disparate range of person. Extreme authoritarian society has little truck with freedom and equality. Altruism relates together such values as freedom and social responsibility, including diversity, but that diversity only inclusive of ethical deviations so far as they are tolerable.
And whereas altruism logically accords many rights to its citizens, they must be balanced by duties. Young people with the right to education and the duty to employ it for social good, with self-interest secondary.

What are ethical values? On no basis is it a species of animal out there that can be examined and described. Therefore it is not a human being that can be dissected as a material body. It would be a mistake to simply take our own existing prejudices and build on them. The starting point is the whole gamut of human [and other] behaviour and interaction, and that also of communities and their behaviour. This provides us with a chaos of activities, and motives deriving from our internal mental world. At that point we, as often rational beings, find it necessary to classify all that activity in order to manage it. We then take a term such as ethics with its generalised root or customary meaning. We can employ this against other convenient terms to define the boundaries between one sort of behaviour and another. There is at least one other term that is important and that is culture. We might even get tediously particular and use the term politics. Before long, the danger is, that we have so finely particularised and narrowed meanings to suit prevailing prejudice, that we will have lost the whole picture. In fine, it is better to describe ethics as distinct from culture, as to do with behaviour that appears to cause damage or otherwise as against innocuous behaviour as culture. We then take such words as there are available for this description and determine how they relate together and if any pattern emerges. In short, it may be contended, there are antonyms which describe a presence or absence, or which suggest simple motives as against social conditions. On the basis that anything simple is logically opposed to something compound. Therefore we will find a number of sets of key values that bring some clarity to the subject. We may take the term Freedom as a simple value or motive, that merely suggests the absence of its antonym as a social condition, which last we tend to call authoritarianism or even tyranny. If tyranny is a social condition, then it is described or suggested by at least two simple values. These in their turn have their antonyms as forms of society. A simple web of values would be triangular as a start. The implication of this is that Freedom is not a particular form of society, and merely provides us with a question as to what positive society we espouse, as against tyranny.

Catch 22: Politics in Action: On the assumption that politicians accepted a fundamental three way split in social-ethics, as against a break down in society and conflict, or chaos. It is unlikely that they would employ names for their parties and philosophies quite the same as I have used. They need to attract the electorate, or gull them, as may be. And the fundamental extremes will be toned down considerably.
Popular names will be employed. The anarchist wing will vaunt its belief in freedom and liberalism. The authoritarian wing will vaunt its belief in law and order. And the altruist wing will perhaps speak of social justice. In any case they will all justify themselves as providing the best for the national future. More subtly perhaps the authoritarian wing will manipulate social convention so as to convince people they should accept the established authority – China and Russia spring to mind for some reason.
At the heart of any manipulation of opinion would presumably be the way people are permitted ‘freedom of speech’. This can mean anything from unfettered rampant freedom, to polite freedom of discussion, to freedom only in politically respectable subjects. The latter instance can mean nothing more than using the suffix ‘phobia’ so as to preclude criticism of various ‘cultures’. The use of the term ‘culture’ to cover almost anything is dangerous – for altruists. Especially where a very inexact category of ‘religion’ is included as culture. It is surely obvious that religions, as they exist, include within them, cosmology, ethics, and culture of an innocuous kind. Ethical values include the term ‘diversity’ but this is directed at culture and does not signify rampant hedonism – as the way anarchism is most likely to be used.

Quoting RW Standing

In fine, it is better to describe ethics as distinct from culture, as to do with behaviour that appears to cause damage or otherwise as against innocuous behaviour as culture.

If I read this right, it makes tons of sense to me. However, there are too many "as"-es that obscure my language skills in trying to parse this sentence.

Please re-write this sentence in more precise English. The way I read it, it shows brilliant insight, but I may be misreading it... I can't tell from here what it says, what with the unnecessarily unusual constructs you use in it.

Not sure how my ambiguities confuse. I do not like the idea of employing the term Culture so as to include ethics in any form. As I may have said somewhere, there is no hard dividing line between ethics and morality, and culture. The famous veil that some women wear is an example of culture at the edge. Culture I take to be those arts and crafts and traditions that up until now demark one country from another, and may be considered an highly desirable attribute. That is diversity in culture - multiculturalism. Diversity I include in my list of ethical values, but relates to culture. It is absurd for ethics to justify a rampant range of morality on the grounds of diversity. In fact, if you have followed my diagrammatic representation of values, cultural diversity is NOT applicable to Anarchism which tends to produce a global unity of culture.
I had better stop in case I confuse myself too!!!

Reply to RW Standing
You came to a brilliant conclusion: Ethics is the values placed on behaviour judged for a behaviour's effect for the detriment or for the continued sustenance of culture.

Why can't you go with this? I fully support this.

That sounds like good description. Of course, in fact, the good or otherwise would not be judged apriori on the basis or prejudice. There are by my reckoning three essential or fundamental forms of society - as opposed to social chaos - and value would be judged within each of them. Which means that in anarchism [so to speak] the widest range of behaviour would be accepted [egalitarian] that does not undermine social stability. Although, pragmatism would not be defining feature of such a society. The 'virtue' of altruistic society being pragmatism. Authoritarian society would be pragmatic but only to the benefit of the system [divine right of kings] and its 'god'. if you understand that its more than I can!

Reply to RW Standing
Verrry interesting. For now I would like to add only, that the driving force in an anarchistic society is also pragmatism, but it happens without social cohesion beyond the nuclear family unit. Each to his own. The goal of every individual is to pragmatically obtain and secure what one and one's family needs and wants, with no regard to other families.

So the three types of societies you drew up the difference is scope of pragmatism. In anarchy, every unit is equal, and selfish. In an altruistic society (such as European, Canadian and Australian democracies) the resources and social structures that evolved allows all units to look out as much for themselves as for all other units. In totalitarianism, there is only one beneficiary, ultimately, the king (or henchman, or strongman, or head of state, or whatever you want to call him or her.) Here, pragmatism serves only the king, all other people are worth shit. The scope of pragmatism is over all society, but benefitting only one. In altruism, scope is all society, benefitting all. In anarchy, scope is family-wide, but not beyond, benefitting the family only.

I am still concocting notes on the general subject.
On the matter of Rights. It may already have been stated that rights barely apply to authoritarian society but duty does, and there is a right for anarchistic society for its people to be independent of each other [their families or groups etc as may be] and duty in accordance. Altruist society is of its nature bound to accord rights to its citizens, and at a global level, rights will be accorded national societies. These cannot stand alone and must have corresponding duties or responsibilities. Such as the right to education and realizing one’s own potential is set against a duty to employ the fruits of that education for the benefit of society whether embodied by the nation or otherwise. But there the matter becomes interesting. Because we live in a natural global society, and rights may be accorded all forms of life. Within human society, rights apply to all people whatsoever, including criminals. But the catch is that of both pragmatism and balancing duties. As a rational species [so we say] we can accord rights to animals. But animals have no such understanding and cannot reciprocate other than as nature dictates. Therefore the process is one-way and practicality can only take the form of our respecting nature as a whole, and in particular the beasts we domesticate. Within human society, a criminal is a citizen with the all the accepted rights. But this is balanced by the fact, presumably, that he has failed in various duties. This means that he can be respected as a sensate and rational human being, but certain rights-duties are incomplete and therefore he is most likely in prison.
Anarchistic society is unlikely to be realized at its theoretical extreme – if that could be defined. But the right to life and minimal security will undoubtedly exist or be accorded. Some element of the Decalogue would be admirably suited, and penalties might well be biblical.

Freewill: An overstated faculty. We are often told that God has given us Freewill. But what it is we call God is both vague and has to be proved to exist. What we call Freewill is rather vague also. Assume freewill signifies our having control over what we do and choose from all that is available and acting on it. Excellent. But now define that in terms of ethics. Why choose one of the three supposed end-values rather than another, four values if chaos is included. We are what we are already by the fact of previous nature and nurture. The ‘goods’ we value will already be imprinted on us so as to bias our ‘choice’. But we continue to experience, learn, and employ our mental faculties. A Road to Damascus event might have immediate and great impact. A predisposition to be beneficent to others, and what may be an entirely false belief in the words of Jesus of Nazareth, will be a powerful inducement towards some form of altruistic behaviour. Or it may impel us to burn heretics. Or behave in way that is superficially innocuous, but rationally a risk to society in the long term. We do as we are, and then do as we have become. A rush of fear and cowardice may have a great immediate effect on decisions.
As previously mentioned, altruist society may attract those who are inclined to be practical in the long term.
Nevertheless, it is in nature of altruist society that everyone be held accountable for their actions unless they are like many of us barking mad. Anarchism in its nature may be vindictive, and authoritarianism may in its nature be implacable.
Communities or nations also exist as citizens of the world, and are similarly accountable. The difference to altruism being that tyranny seeks to unify globally in one business concern, and anarchism sees the world as an aggregate of individuals.

The three types of society indicate the direction of travel. Not that everything is fixed in one or the other. There are of course any number of variations. Our own country and people in it no doubt falls into some intermediary position that I was going to mention. We have today many nations that call themselves democratic and have similarities in use of values. The point of the matter is that the current linear model of Left and Right, and the ethical model of some absolute sounding Virtue and Vice are inadequate.

A society of autonomous individuals is not what we have in this country, which in fact is very cooperative. But there is a vanity about freedom, that is dangerous, so far as altruists are concerned.

All the elementary values relate in varying degrees to all forms of stable society. Where they cease to do so then society is falling into conflict and chaos. As for instance freedom relates particularly to altruist and anarchistic society and clearly least so to its antonym of tyranny – except for the tyrant if that is a person and not something more subtle. Any society that exists will be somewhere between. Freedom is a question about purpose and is not a society in iteslf.
It is peculiar to modern society that it is obsessed with the idea of competition. Whereas, we do not need to be followers of Lovelock to realize that the natural world, let alone human, is greatly cooperative. A long established forest is a network of growth above and below ground, and is highly interdependent. In the animal kingdom, the appearance of red in tooth and claw is about the necessity for survival, but below that there is such cooperation as is necessary for families of predators to survive and the predated to escape. The same is true in human society, and no business or community can survive otherwise. The purpose of that cooperation and how limited it is relates to the society it serves. At the extreme the citizenry are merely tools that serve those or the system in charge. Extreme individualism or autonomy is the least cooperative and prizes independence to a fault. Altruist democracy is overtly cooperative as is increasingly necessary not only locally, or in business concerns, but globally.

Quoting Terrapin Station

What I'm asking is not what's objective about life expectancy, etc.

I'm asking what's objective about "we should have x (re life expectancy, for example) as a goal."

I think he is talking about an objective standard, and not meant in the sense of mental/non mental per say. A standard created for reference, like a measuring tape.
Also, your response to the OP is pure gold. Had a good chuckle as I read through it. In my mind your voice is Alan Rickman with a deadpan delivery dripping with condescension and sarcasm.

Quoting DingoJones

Also, your response to the OP is pure gold. Had a good chuckle as I read through it. In my mind your voice is Alan Rickman with a deadpan delivery dripping with condescension and sarcasm.

:razz:

Democracy: Until recently democracy in this country has been on the basis of representative government and not delegates, and not opinion polls. This has at least placed legislation in the hands of people who are probably concerned with social stability and play of opinion in parliament. There is now a growing use of polls or referenda to resolve stalemates in parliament. There is the probability of a referendum in N.I. to resolve the question of abortion. This country therefore appears to be in a state of flux regarding the nature of democracy and how practically to manage it. This is a fundamental issue and it is very risky to leave its resolution to random change.
Assuming the validity of there being three directions of travel for society and one of these as increasing authoritarianism. The latter is not what is normally assumed as democracy with its root in demos. At the very least democracy should relate to the indeterminate value of freedom, but with this only realized as a form of society by the way that simple value is qualified by other values. [Not to mention various other sets of values] It can either be a corporate freedom within ‘altruist’ society. Or it may be a purely individualistic freedom of self-interest within a very minimalist society. The greatest folly would no doubt be simply making democracy a populist opinion poll that may be hijacked by any passing demagogue [Trump?] or even worse such a person as Hitler. The end result of that being a populace in happy servitude.
The way our present rather intermediate form of democracy works, the Irish question is likely to be resolved by parliament deciding on what it will put in the poll as a form of legislation regarding abortion, and merely asking for it to be agreed in the poll.
But all this pragmatism hides the underlying ethical question of abortion and the value of life. It should be clear that if we have a population that leans in three directions, it will influence how they vote. Some people will not give a hoot and will vote to get the matter settled. Others will be controlled by their religion and vote in the way they are instructed by it. Some more will be influenced by the values they see in their religion or philosophy. Others will believe in the right of individuals to act for themselves. Many will see the foetus as a growing person with commensurate rights. Others see the mother as having right over her own body in all its content. Some will assert the rights of both parents. And of course the term religion can hide the fact that it and the state may have the same voice.
Assuming the three forms or directions of society. It would be foolish for a ‘democracy’ not to decide whether it is after all quite authoritarian, or it is in some degree altruistic, or it is in favour of more anarchistic self-interest.
There is no great doubt about the ethic of altruism in this case, at least in approximation.

Empower – Empowering: A term which is very popular today and would appear to be a positive emphasis on freedom. People are given the power to do things. As such it is the opposite of slavery or being forbidden anything. It is therefore subject to the same comments as is freedom. It is other values that denote what social assets are obtained. The person or community that is empowered must decide whether it is to move in the direction of cooperative altruism or in the direction of aloof autonomy or independence amongst other independent people and communities.
It no doubt indicates having the power to claim rights. But in doing so the person or community must also agree on the duties or responsibilities it will adopt in relation to its rights. At the very least the duty not to interfere or encroach on others. That is to say, freedom and equality run together.

Freedom – Pragmatism – Reductionism
Reductionists tend to take particular values that they happen to like and extol them in isolation or with respect to particular things or objects that are favoured. As Social values freedom and pragmatism stand in conjunction with other values. It is the ethical purposes of freedom and pragmatism that need to be considered. Altruist society, as my model has it, is both pragmatic and free – which means according to the nature or rules of altruism. A society of autonomous individuals is also free but is barely pragmatic as a society – even though individuals may be pragmatic within their narrow horizons. None of this should be confused with that rambling structure called capitalism and free trade etc. In fact British society today is far more altruistic than hitherto. In perhaps a narrower sense of being cooperative, it is a prime value of the natural world, despite the appearance of being red in tooth and claw. Altruist society is the prime form of society for its pragmatism and regard for freedom. Altruism is a fairly modern term and we should not be pedantic about its original meaning.
Of course, those who view the world and ethics from a purely individualistic view, and those who believe in ‘gods’ authority, may well construct ethical models to suit.

Public Benefit, Social Benefit, Government Benefit: There are a vast number of naive or tendentious people in the world, asking for absolute or ‘right’ answers to moral conundrums, while yet we live in a world that is and will be far from perfect. An imperfect world has the greatest quantity of conundrums, and the most likelihood of only having only unsatisfactory answers.
We have a current problem respecting an ambassador and confidential information. There is a large body of opinion that proclaims press freedom and free speech, while the government has to decide what should be lawful. The matter of Public Benefit is debated. If we were in some extreme degree of authoritarian society or state, then public benefit would be what is in the government interest to allow individuals to know. If we are not authoritarian, then the question really breaks into two. What is in the public or individual interest, and what is in the corporate social interest. There may be much that an altruist democracy can release for individual interest, having no social implications. In other matters, social interest may be severely damaged and therefore to be kept legally protected.
Unfortunately government is naturally authoritarian to a degree, and it were better if social interest were decided by some other arrangement. We do have a fairly independent judiciary and high court. However imperfect the courts may be they are better than in many other parts of the world.
But the answer to the original question is that we must be able to distinguish two sorts of Interest – three if public interest is foregone.

Modern and Social Engineering
A BBC documentary on LGB teaching at schools raised several questions. Quite apart from what is ‘right or wrong’.
Firstly the terms old and modern are not ethical values, and can justify nothing ethically.
To be modern and more effective for a morally ‘good’ purpose is quite another matter.
Secondly, teaching at school and anywhere else is entirely a matter of social engineering.
Even teaching maths, since it does that as a ‘good’ rather than not teaching the subject as a ‘good’.
To teach that something should be tolerated is to say that it is not ‘bad’ which is social engineering.
Thirdly, if every religion and its attitude to LGB should be tolerated in this country, then this country is divided between different ethical societies. Interreligious schools in that case cannot teach anything with respect to the subject.

As with the current Conservative leadership contest. A political system that relies on popular support is almost certain to be ethically muddled. If it does not depend on populism then it may well be entirely bigoted.
None of the extreme social-political systems can be defined in detail, only in relation to each other and in general terms.
Described in ‘religious’ terms.
Firstly, a society based on a bigoted ritualistic culture, in which the individual has no importance as such. Tyranny.
Secondly, a society based on entirely individualistic ‘religion’ with minimal corporate or social identity. Autonomy.
Thirdly, a society as a broad community or church of individuals. Altruism.
The problem for present day politics is in the use of terms, like freedom, and equality, as definitions of a form of society, with minimal regard for other inconvenient values.
As is obvious those last values apply least to a ‘tyranny’ in which the elite are the only ones who may be free.
For ‘tyranny’ all are equal only in their moral unity.
For ‘autonomy’ all are equal in their moral disparity.
For ‘altruism’ all are equal in their moral congruity.
Tyranny will tend to have one global culture.
Autonomy will tend to have no culture.
Altruism will tend to have diverse global cultures.
There was a moral philosopher who tended to put voice to this, in disparaging mere religious ritual, and also self-interest, as against a more ‘brotherly’ ethic. While recognising that society had to have a prior base in some degree of authority. The Christian world has often concentrated on the last of these ‘values’ to its cost.
As often mentioned, ‘tyranny’ and ‘autonomy’ have inbuilt faults.
If ‘tyranny’ has a cosmology that cannot be fitted to reality, then it will not make good use of its technicians or philosophers.
If ‘autonomy’ is so fractured that society cannot work efficiently then it may collapse.
That is why current politics has mixed messages, and talks of ‘free trade’ and industry when in fact it must regulate it for social good. It has a muddled notion of equality as an arithmetical exercise, and yet must talk of a ‘meritocracy’.
It speaks of the value of the family and yet proclaims liberty for people to form any and all sorts of relationships, involving any and all forms of procreation and families.
Whether multiple ‘sexes’ is a tolerable norm, is a debatable point. What form and parentage the family should have is another debatable point.
Altruism debates, and then makes its mistakes, and learns if indeed it survives.
Behind all kinds of society, there is the fundamental need – we assume – for society to survive. Therefore, the future and the environment might seem to be the first priority, and not wealth and population numbers.

Quoting RW Standing

There are a number of diagrammatic representations of how ethical values relate - supposedly. Any such, or a new version or description, would be useful. I am not finished yet!!!

That'd be cool to get a cite on. I'm looking for that kind of stuff.

Racism; This another term that arouses irrational passion. With our present reductionist ethic, it is yet another value that is defined according to the prejudices that prevail. As with all matters of morality the first thing to be clear is what form of society we are judging it within.
What is broadly a Tyranny may or may not be based on race, but it is entirely in keeping for race to be a defining feature. The most extreme tyranny would include it amongst other consonant features of tyranny.
Autonomy, as broadly defined, would have individualism at its core, and racial distinctions would entirely evaporate in time, after a period of conflict. As a loose society it would not so much oppose racism as ignore it.
Altruism as broadly defined, is the one form of society that must provide itself with careful definitions. The question of colour is but a part of what defines a race. Race as a physical manifestation is not an ethical value, and as such it may be incorporated within broad culture, and as a matter of aesthetics. It is encompassed by the value of Diversity. Global altruism would count it, as with diversity in Nature, as something to be encouraged and maintained. Obviously on a national and regional basis, since only that would provide the framework for its preservation. In the nature of altruism - if a particular ‘race’ has genetic disease - then an ethical question arises as to whether that may be removed for the benefit of the individuals concerned.
It is when ‘race’ is defined in terms of a social group defined by their ethical views and aptitudes that the greatest problem arises. Altruism must decide what ethical varieties it can accept in global society, or confine to a region. By definition, altruism, or altruist democracy, cannot accept tendencies that are antipathetic to altruism. Which means any social group or ‘nation’ or ‘state’ whatsoever may be criticised on that basis, in a rational and polite way as befits altruism. But at some point, altruist democracy must protect itself as in 1939.
Racism within a national society tends to be a product of a chaotic mixing of religious, ethical, political, groups. If they are antipathetic to each other.
The expression used of, ‘being against racism in all its forms’, tends to complete vacuity.
:::::
First the League of Nations and latterly the United Nations are examples of valuable attempts at a world system, but the near impossibility of this for a host of nations employing ethical values in contrary ways, is manifest.
As a federation designed simply for security and peace, it may have had effect, but with powerful tyrannies that were not intrinsically concerned with peace other than on their terms, it was only feasible under their hegemony.
It may also have been successful on the basis of national autonomy, if the expansionist tyrannies had been stifled. In which case any country ruining itself or persecuting its citizens would have been no concern for others.
As a vehicle for European democratic, and altruistic values, it has had some success no doubt. But it is pure hypocrisy for the altruist style democracies to imagine such a chaotic world can pragmatically be treated as though every problem will have a moral solution. We are thrown back onto a survival code to protect that part of the world that is in our sphere of social morality and constraint’
::::::
An example that may be employed is, Palestine-Israel.
1: Anyone who states that Israel or Palestine should not exist will immediately be suspected of racism. Perhaps betraying an irrational prejudice that every state should have complete hegemony of a particular kind.
2: Those who treat all ethics as being individualistic, will claim that this conglomerate should be entirely open, under whatever name it may have.
These latter alternatives have implications for the future that may be imagined.
3: The third alternative is that Palestine by its prewar name and area, should have so continued, with immigration strictly controlled so as to maintain the ‘rights’ of those already in occupation.
However, this does not answer the situation as it is. The only answer at hand is that there is a chaotic ethical conflict that could be answered by international action of a direct kind, but which would probably only cause more Middle East destruction and mayhem.
A twin state solution is almost entirely undermined. Can a single state be agreed under pressure, with dual constitutional rights.
The actual answer will probably arise out of raw power in the area involved – which is not altruist rule.

Should Climate Activists Break the Law: There is a dimension of duty and responsibility that links Altruism and Tyranny – or mere Authoritarianism – and which is largely absent for anarchistic society or Autonomy.
The plain answer is that ‘anarchists’ will indeed break the law with some impunity. However, even they must have a minimal regard for society, and it is obvious that action which undermines society ethically approaches a par with environmental ruin. In our democracy they may well find themselves prosecuted.
Those who submit to authoritarianism are bound by duty and do not break the law, albeit they may indeed protest to authority. Our democracy is content with verbal protest.
Altruists are bound by social responsibility, with a choice between verbal protest and restrained physical protest that may indeed be accepted in our democracy, without prosecution. However, if the global situation deteriorates and is critical, itself a matter of opinion, then mass passive disobedience may be expected. Beyond that!!

Gladiators
Britain of today is an indeterminate democracy with a confused ethic.
There has been the recent death of a professional boxer due to brain injury. Boxing is very much less extreme than the well-known gladiatorial contests of the Roman world. But they point to alternative ethics that we have yet to deal with.
Gladiators and similar extreme contests are consonant with an extreme authoritarian society, or tyranny, that wishes to ‘entertain’ its subjects, while having no real concern for them other than as servants. Bread and Circuses.
As against that, but not diametrically opposed to it, there is the extreme anarchistic society of personal autonomy. It would naturally refer to itself as a ‘free society’ as the virtually the only value it espouses. Even something as extreme as gladiators, and certainly the comparatively mild sport of boxing, would undoubtedly be tolerated. It would be the ‘right’ of every individual to participate or be induced to do so. But, as the sport is today, boxing can result in injury and death. Not by accident, but as a direct result of intentional battering to the head. However, this would be an accepted danger, with those involved taking the consequences. Apart from immediate first aid there would be no duty accepted by society to provide aid or future sustenance, with the injured party left to the ‘free’ will of his or her family.
As against both of the preceding, there is the altruist form of society. And this, quite intrinsically, would involve a duty of care by society, and both rights and duties on the part of the ‘sportsman’. People who are accidently injured or who have injury caused them by malice or carelessness, would be given all practical aid then and in future by society. But ‘sportsmen’ with the right to take part in such an activity, would have a commensurate duty not to inflict injury. This creates a problem in distinguishing what may be termed genuine ‘sport’ from gladiatorial sport. As ever, an altruist society must discuss every ethical conundrum and create rules for the moment. Battering a person’s head is easily defined.

Extinction Rebellion: Those involved in this organisation are right about only one thing. The environmental problem subsumes all other problems of this country and world.
It is surely a minority of people living cloistered lives who do not accept that we are in an extinction event, involving the whole natural world, and therefore the human world that dominates it.
It can only be supposed that our politicians have every digit and limb crossed, in the hope that technology will provide a fix, while we continue to expand production of material goods, and encourage population growth.
We have forgotten that civilized society is a luxury, with the prior essential that of stabilising the world in which we live, while maintaining a hold on some practical ‘choice’ for civilization. Something better than brute tyranny.
But also better than the anarchistic self-indulgence that dominates our present life. Coming to a culmination in a global network of virtual reality.
We have a philosophy for the common man, that may be summed up as ‘live and let live’ which is not responsible altruism. The emphasis being on enjoying the life-style that ‘capitalism’ has provided, and letting tomorrow look after itself. When this breaks down, and even if a technology fixes the environmental crisis, what we may well find is that a commercialised form of tyranny has taken over. We will be living in a precariously artificial world managed by technocrats and artificial intelligence.
If any natural and altruistic order is to prevail. We need to change the economic system, away from money denoting wealth. Everything that industry makes consumes natural wealth, together with human labour and intellect. We could all be, in increasing numbers, flying about the world in more and more aircraft, employing massive labour in all aspects, enjoying ourselves in artificial resorts while nature is depleted. Leaving care for people in the hands of robots.
But then it is a choice and it is human nature to take the easy course.
Tyranny – anarchism – altruism.

Antonyms: The common assumption with ethical values is that there are opposed conditions of man and society, on the pattern of virtue opposed to vice. This tends to leave pairs of values floating about in space waiting to be picked up and used to justify some action or thing, as whim decides. It is barely considered how values relate to each other as a whole, as a description of the human mind.
As may have been mentioned a few times. We may espouse ‘freedom’ but omit to relate it both to the individual and to the whole society. There is a similar two way split between responsibility-duty. And the ego of the individual and of society. It entirely depends on how these dimensions of value relate together, that a form of society is indicated.
Setting aside a world in war and chaos, as is ours today.
A society or state may invoke the law and duty as its logos or ego, as opposed to any substantial form of freedom.
A society may invoke individual freedom and ego as opposed to any substantial form of duty.
A society may express corporate freedom with responsibility as opposed to substantial ego.
In the nature of practical and imperfect society, such as we must have, there will be a blend of each in varying degrees from society to society.
Or words to that effect!

Economy: Our economy and its system is not separate from our overall ethos. It is part of the definition of our society. Yet it still bears the marks of a barter economy that employs gold and silver or rice, as the medium of barter.
An absolutist state could, rather cumbersomely, simply provide goods for people who work for it, and distribute wealth as suits the purposes of state.
Anarchistic individualism owning commerce for personal profit, would naturally employ money as a form of goods, as if it were gold or rice. Even the natural world might be given a monetary value. Such central government as exists would be seen as taxing citizens for what would be a minimalist system of law and order. In its nature a system that maximises production and population.
Altruistic society would be by its nature corporate, owning commerce, providing money as a lubricant or vehicle of exchange. Fiat money so it appears. The natural world and industrial goods would be corporately valued for social good, with the natural world a good for and in its own right. In its nature a minimalist system for goods and population.
In reality we live in a humbug society that hides the plain fact that whatever form of government we have, it has final control and ‘ownership’ of commerce and property.

Quoting RW Standing

Reductionism in ethics is a total folly.

I looked up the definition first:

Reductionism is any of several related philosophical ideas regarding the associations between phenomena which can be described in terms of other simpler or more fundamental phenomena.

It is a bit vague as a concept, but the example in mathematics definitely clarified the concept to me:

In mathematics, reductionism can be interpreted as the philosophy that all mathematics can (or ought to) be based on a common foundation, which for modern mathematics is usually axiomatic set theory. Ernst Zermelo was one of the major advocates of such an opinion; he also developed much of axiomatic set theory.

Agreed, but it may fail to mention an important principle: Every Turing-complete axiomatization is equivalent in expressive power.

So, axiomatic set theory is not more powerful than axiomatic function theory (lambda calculus) or axiomatic combinator theory (SKI calculus), and so on. There is an unlimited number of such equivalent axiomatizations possible.

Concerning ethics, axiomatic derivation from scripture is beyond any reasonable doubt the core principle in Jewish and Islamic law. Reductionism is also the central epistemic argument that Martin Luther used in his defence at his hearing in Worms, in front of the emperor, Charles V:

If you can show me through scripture and reason that I would be wrong, I will retract what I have said.

The prosecutor acting on behalf of Papacy could have answered something along the lines of, "As an Augustinian monk, you are a member of our staff, and in our employ, and therefore you are held to do what we tell you to do." The prosecutor didn't. He said something utterly damaging instead:

The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each evil heretic has drawn his deceptive arguments.

The Papacy therefore flatly rejected the Bible as a legitimate axiomatic foundation for religious law. It would be unsuitable for that purpose, since it is replete with deceptive arguments.

Since there is clearly nothing to reduce arguments in Christian religious law to -- according to the Papacy -- reductionism is indeed a folly in Christianity. Without axiomatic foundation, it would just be a silly exercise in infinite regress.

Atheist ethics do not even have a basic document to which they could possibly reduce their conclusions to, i.e. a list of Kantian categorical imperatives. Hence, the core method of atheist ethics is necessarily: infinite regress, along with the occasional, impredicative circular reasoning.

Reductionism in ethics is indeed a folly when you have nothing to reduce your conclusions to.

Impeccable Virtues of Pragmatic Tyranny and Autonomy
It is the art of the tendentious to employ fashionable virtues of the time in a way that appears to justify quite contrary social ends. Today there is barely a country that does not employ the trappings of democracy, with public elections and a representative parliament, a judiciary separate from the executive, but in reality under the draconian control of law. Alternatively, the ultra-liberal wing trades on ‘extremist’ language so as to minimise rational debate other than their own.
A feature of this is in perfectly valid ethical-political values being defined in pragmatic ways in isolation from other values. What would holistically be a lack of freedom and equality, for instance, is defined by what is narrowly permitted.
Brief examples of this that may well be vastly ‘improved’.
Freedom: Everyone is free to work as they are able.
Equality: Everyone has equal opportunity to do what they can.
Freedom: Everyone is free to go where they may.
Equality: All people are equal for what they are.
Cooperation:: All people exist as one family.
Love: All people must care for each other.
Society: We live in a global society.
On the other hand, Altruists as those who would treat values holistically, would say that contrary forms of society should define their objectives honestly and clearly.
Altruists are after all ultimately biased in favour of their own form of society.

Democratic Tyranny: That modern semi-altruistic democracies are not all they purport to be is fairly inevitable, especially in a chaotic world. A ‘state’ that has a good degree of stability and security cannot afford to squander that for a nicety of ethics. Britain is currently an example of how democracy should work, in allowing regions such as Scotland the liberty to decide on remaining in the Union or leaving – Parliament could block referenda. If the UK does break-up there will be a consequent loss of security, and the economic benefits of union will be lost. However, if we lived in a secure and democratic world, with no economic or environmental crisis, the result would be of cultural benefit for diversity.
A country such as China is not, and few would expect it to act democratically. It lays claim to Formosa or Taiwan on the basis of history, and quite validly from that viewpoint. But Formosa is an island quite separate from the mainland, and for altruist democracy at least, it belongs to its people. It is also quite viable as an independent country or state.
Israel-Palestine is a place in flux. Its security is a foremost concern. Therefore the occupation of the Golan Heights is at least understandable. But occupation as the result of war is not a basis for its inclusion in the country. It is however to be suspected that prolonged occupation will be employed as a justification, in the way it has been generally for the country since WW2.
The interesting question is what the third form of society or state would do. Anarchistic individualism. The minimalist state of property owners. For India today Kashmir is a disputed region. It is being held by military force with scant regard for the wishes of its indigenous inhabitants and their democratic choice. Until now it has some autonomy, but India is reportedly proposing to absorb the region it occupies into India. This could mean its land being up for grabs by Indian people at large, and movement of population into Kashmir, changing its demography. This can be seen as a tyrannical device, or anarchistic device. In either case it will replace cultural diversity with globalised fashion.

Chaos and Crime: A world in extreme chaos is one without any effective law or code of conduct. It would not be at war, since war is conducted by ‘nations’ which have rules of conduct for what may still be mayhem.
There is no common basis for the definition of crime.
Crime is a feature of established society, in such acts as to push it towards lawless chaos. A society that is at least socially stable will have its laws and codes of conduct which define crime and how to deal with it.
Murder is a crime that everyone recognises and how it should be ‘punished’!!
In reality this hides an absurdity, for ‘murder’ is simply a term for what the law determines is ‘murder’ as opposed to various other categories of killing. There is no self-evident meaning for the term otherwise. That the decalogue may proscribes what is translated as ‘murder’ is useless without careful legal definitions.
It may immediately be said that altruist democracy would no doubt define it in terms of ‘killing with malice’ and ‘cold blooded murder’. Anything else is likely to be manslaughter or an accident. There may well be degrees of ‘murder’ with the most heinous being that of mass-murder and genocide. And perhaps the murder of a minor, or a law enforcement officer.
How alltruist democracy deals with the offender is more fraught with difficulty. The main concern being to counter the causes of crime and murder. The offender being held ‘responsible’ for his acts whatever we may deduce about free-will. With many offenders considered in some degree unbalanced, or too young to understand their actions. However,an eye for eye and mechanical retribution is not a characteristic of altruistic democracy. Everyone is equal in their potential of humanity.
In an extreme Tyrannical society, which includes bigoted forms of theocracy that employ logic to justify prior belief, people are not intrinsically valued other than as servants. Such a society would be marked by a rigid set of rules, and retributive punishments. With killing that is tantamount to regicide as the most heinous crime. If part of the belief system is humanitarian then it is not an extreme tyranny.
In Anarchistic society the only substantial concern for the law would be peace keeping. The core of belief being in the sanctity of the individual as an independent person responsible for himself. This might have the appearance of altruism, except that it would include a degree of apathy about the fate of anyone. The strong survive. The only necessity being the removal of criminals from society, and allowing victim’s families some responsibility for deciding punishment or treatment.

Racism: This is another of those terms that can mean almost anything. In this instance it is intrinsically to do with race, and attitudes to race. Race itself an ambiguous term. It can at least be distinguished from culture in a large degree although various ‘racial’ characteristics will have their place in culture. But essentially race is to do with physical inheritance deriving from the ancient geographical divisions of the world resulting in divergence. Religions also have had similar geographical distribution, but religion is a compound of culture, ethics, and cosmology. This confusion means that ‘racism’ needs to take account of all of the foregoing.
Simplifying matters:
Anarchistic individualism will be ‘blind’ to race.
Tyranny – if its so in all matters – will employ all the features of ‘race’ to define virtue.
Altruist society will support all harmless or cultural features of race as enhancing diversity.
Taking all other features of these forms of society into account:
Anarchism will be globalist and eventually racial variety will be expunged.
Tyranny at the ultimate may consist of one global ‘race’.
Altruism, will affirm localist responsibility and cooperate in maintaining human and natural diversity.
What other outcomes are likely from these forms of society may be imagined.

We don't have any choices:

(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.

Reductionism makes sense because everything ultimately reduces to fundamental elements. This applies to ethics as much as anything else.

Some values are invalid because they cause more harm than good.

Populism: A basic dictionary meaning of Populism is that of promoting the interests of ordinary people. But it might be related to the way referenda and elections work, in taking a crude majority opinion as a democratic choice. Or accepting an aggregate of public opinion and then governing so as to cater for the broadest width of this opinion. This is rather like governing according to fashion. It may contain some or no intelligence or logic, or consistent use of values.
In fact it is a method that would seem to be consistent with Anarchistic individualism and social randomness.
Against that there is an authoritarian form of decision making or government. This is rather theocratic with a ‘church’ that sets an agenda which future members of the church must accept. Creating a self-perpetuating authority that uses logic to justify its bigotry. Or we have a technological form of authority in which everything in life and living is designed for the general public by the academic hierarchy.
Thirdly, there is a more organic form of social rule and consensus. Not unlike what we have in Britain. But one on which the producers at all levels are working for the public benefit, and not for self-aggrandisement. Government is representative and public opinion or referenda are for advisement. Salaries and other ‘earnings’ are not let loose in globalised competition to create stratospheric unbridled rewards. The epitome of public service is the scientists and others we have long had, who work for the intrinsic rewards of knowledge with a secure income.

Social Choice: It may be asked how We and the World can or should choose the form of society we have. Either Anarchistic, Authoritarian, or Altruistic.
The plain answer is that the question is false.
If individuals have a choice about their lives, independent of others, then they are already in a degree of anarchistic society.
If they have adopted a bigoted form of religion-philosophy then they are already on course to tyranny.
If they have mutual concern for any form of welfare then they are already on course to altruism.
Or plain confused!
It may take very little to knock the boat of course. An individual or group with increasing power in anarchistic society may well take control. The rigidity of authoritarian rule may come up against the foibles of Nature, and collapse. Altruist society may adopt pragmatic measures to ensure security that warps into authoritarianism.
At the purely individual level it may be stated that an Altruist is an Altruist by the fact of his global history, in nature and nurture. Why would he contradict his own innate ethos, other than by outer forces working on him that cannot be withstood.
Such are the limits of freewill.

Reply to RW Standing Have you heard of "blogs"? It's a hot new thing on the Internet - you should check it out!