(Neo-)Kantian Ethics, The Ethics of Integrity

(Neo-)Kantian Ethics, The Ethics of Integrity

[by Terje Lea 12. July 2011, time 06:22 by Facebook data only.]

Neo-Kantian Ethics, The Ethics of Integrity

Human integrity or the identity of the human

This is original Work by Terje Lea and it has been running from 1998 to 2018, today.

Represented by T + Olsnes-Lea / By Unity Circle

History. I find it rewarding to still keep this project going since its inception in 1998 and to keep the respects to the matter alive, possibly by the mere undertaking of documenting my angle to ethics and working it to a complete argument, thereby having it freshly in memory!

This is really coming down to moral.

There is no such thing as objectivity in interhuman relations. You will only find subjectivity and inter-subjectivity.

Science in the meaning of proving the truth for the public for the Beginning to the End.

For the sake of clarity and for avoiding misunderstanding, this is the definition of Integrity: Loosely from I. Kant, it is that everyone must preserve both the ends of rationality in oneself as well as the ends of rationality in others. Usually, preserving rationality means preserving the potential for maximal happiness, I think. Both as the joy for oneself to live and for the opportunity to enjoy life in general, both people and nature, with the science and industry included. I like you to take nature seriously in the aspect of ecology to support the rationality in yourself and others as nature is the basis for being able to safely sustain humanity and its prosperity (without breaching exactly this nature's boundaries for being a healthy nature with its wildlife and free development in it. Note that I write "preserve", please. Because integrity is to maintain humanity in oneself as well as others, all you need to do is to stay on its course, by duty and job requirement. As long as you carry out your duties relating to your age and condition, you should preserve your integrity very well. Do not lose rationality out of sight!

Difference in nature of integrity as interhuman relations. Individuals that meet, form their understanding of integrity out of the presumption of the other individual`s intentions.

Intension, Attitude and Action (objective) are the objective determinants of Integrity. Be careful for what you do, please! As an alternative to the Good Will of I. Kant, you can think of labelling your propositions in your head with the appropriate value, ie. wrong, right, unknown and undecided. This makes you more safely founded in moving forwards in life with regards to ethical and moral decisions you make. Not that both Good Will and this Labelling go well together because I think they do!

Self-realisation is realise the most of your human nature to the highest degree, intellectually and possibly also physically, while maintaining good health, and in compliance with sound ethics, i.e., ethical objectivity. It's paramount that self-realisation follows integrity in order to be this whole ethical/moral person. Otherwise, it's my theory that corruption and decadence enter the system.

One should remember that your Life-World, all of your experience, physical life, and all of your thoughts, mental life, consists of making the utmost of yourself where the starting priorities are yourself, eminently first, and following proximity thereafter, typically, family, then friends, then contacts, then business connections, then the friendly strangers, then the neutral strangers and then certainly last, the hostile strangers, the crime-enterprise crazies and the rest (incl. enemies). The existential starting point, in my opinion, is from the age of 18 with the actual luggage from upbringing, whatever it is. This does not mean that you are relieved from your duties before this, but that deficient parents, adverse social and physical environment can to lesser or greater degree prevent you from, obviously, becoming the best of yourself. Adversity in this sense is permanent adversity and loss because you lose a combination of time and opportunities.

However, as we proceed, your duties to this are therefore to work reasonably hard with a sound mind and having good personal security with the objective in mind to advance yourself in recognition and profit, on the personal side and to be constructive and of service to society, non-corruptively, contributing to justice and morality, on the other. A fine consequence of this is the advances in science and technology and the very excellent aspects of culture including the arts, more or less progressive. Therefore I've made the following drawings that you should associate this with.

The Good Will means...

[The following is added 19.02.2006. It is from the rest of the notes that comes with the Kantian Ethics.]

Integrity: Feelings > Expression separate from Rationality > Evaluation supervised by Introspection in between them

After Introspection, the process is Rational Feelings that are held against Feelings of the Beast.

Nature of Human vs. Nature of Beast controlled by introspection. Validated by introspection into according situation.

Preconditions: Rational feelings meaning feelings founded in actual conditions and underpinned and supervised by the Self by introspection.

Free upraising: Meaning the non-existence of abusive force that harms this child's integrity.

Teaching: Meaning to convey a message to anyone with retained integrity, without the use of force.

Conclusion: A human being with retained integrity ready to act on its own behalf and with the interest of retaining others' integrity and in order to self-realise its Self to reach happiness. [End of this 19.02.2006 addition.]

Impact on integrity. An action of revenge? An action of immorality? I find it hard to believe that people commit an action of non-passion using their own bodily sexuality! If an action is global or is affecting only a sector like a group or a single person, insofar as this is possible, is an open question that may best be answered by psychology. I do, however, have the suspicion that integrity is always affected globally, all of your relations. This will become more clear with this writing. I have the sense that every action is "governed" by "the perfect ethical system" because I believe ethics matter more than just mere taste, whether it is known or not! So when action is committed, it is mediated or moderated by your own ethical system, very distinct from "the perfect ethical system" unless in perfect compliance, whether it complies with "the perfect ethical system" or not! Thus, an action of revenge comes across as better because a certain morality is attached to it as is opposed to a crime of passion. Revenge is also better in settling an issue with a group or a single person because it carries morality. Unreasonable revenge that's not proportional to what the revenge concerns, is a different issue! A crime of passion may thus affect you globally while an action of revenge, if anything, has the possibility of being contained to just this group or person and thereby only affecting a sector of your integrity. My sense is, however, that this revenge nevertheless must comply with this "perfect ethical system" and therefore doesn't affect your integrity at all. Thus a wrong action of unjustified revenge may affect your integrity globally just the same! We are therefore back where we've started! Wrong actions, whether this or that, probably affect your integrity globally one way or another! Now, behave!

Note on Universality: it should be unnecessary to mention that objective ethics must be universal if one is to lead a flawless ethical/moral life. I see no possibility for escaping this and you should not bother with it either.

This is the temporary drawings and words of a system: Good Will Hunting.

In Jacques Derrida's tradition, The Deconstructionism, the ultimate tradition, the line of thoughts will be:

(Ethics) - Moral - Integrity - Understanding - (Subjective Truth) - Science - Truth

Further, ethics-wise, Kantian ethics now the gold standard:

"Kantian" and "Kantian Ethics" refer to the position that Kant has had in Ethics, completely entailed by his work, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. People may ascribe more to prof. Kant, but I DON'T!

For the opposite, I've written about "Fatality of Sentiment" like this: A Fatality of Sentiment
Various! Posted by Terje Lea 2011-01-05 04:46:44
If some members, as routine, of society are pinpointed for this, a gruesome death, and suspected murder, possibly from long and painful medically assisted torture, on a subcultural level, it's devious indeed and should be resolved, a blatant ethical requirement! Yet I sense psychiatry is easily muting such claims for being hysteria and "fantasy"! I'm also by the opinion that this is set up ONLY for the sake of "monkey-business" and assuring the compliance of people, whether this or that!
(This may be the 2nd time this is posted by which I'll later remove it.)
The writing above is also obviously a blatant violation of democratic/principles of human rights and can only be seen as SHAME!
http://blog.t-le a.net/#post107
This has orignally been written to a blog at the former website, blog.t-lea.net hosted by One.com.

The thought is that by acquiring knowledge and achieving competence the 6. element is scored, that Integrity says that one should be pro-active and that, given the ethics is complied with, reasonably [discussion in and by itself], then the social classes are forever protected because it is known that anybody "can do it".

This is mainly theoretical and do not account for the latest findings such as police corruption or other corruption and how widespread the carnivore human nature is in preventing the best of human nature to unfold, such as the freedom to be (entirely) pro-active, to seek to solve problems in society and so on!

[Some deluded people may think this running project is a description of a film. IT IS NOT!]

This Sunday, prayer or not, I'm pleased to announce to you:
A Call for the Total Abolition of Torture: My call for the total abolition (under ethics/applied ethics) has the following grounding as rationale,
1. the military power under UN "letter" of civilisation and progress is overwhelming and superior and it can be uttered that every enemy to this progress of human kind can be sufficiently monitored by other means and undergo "intense"/"hard" interrogation instead and so be reasonably covered for no particular hostile action of any significance to ever arise. Terrorism has been radicalised so much that all the possible rationale pro it is GONE! Torture is no more.
2. The decision for democratic ideas to stand unchallenged is now sufficient so to demand that all discussion is to happen peacefully and by no means by terrorism. Again, the rationale for torture for non-existent terrorism to arise is gone a second time.
3. We now have, collectively, such huge resources to clarify democracies and international understanding that no possible terrorist movement, theoretically, can arise and that no torture needs to counter it. Again, torture is no more.
4. There is seemingly no possibility for military conflict of the rational/intelligent kind to arise at all, thus no torture is needed for countering a military disaster to happen.
5. All other, the monitoring of the World is sufficient as it is now to say that only lunatics remains as challenge for any massmurder to happen, but as these are under no intelligent reasoning, one is effectively prevented the excuse to use torture in the first place and thus one is impelled to commit to work ethics for preventing military conflict or terrorism to happen at all. The conclusion must be that torture is to be effectively BANNED as soon as possible!
(Warning: I am famous for it (Objective Ethics/Integrity)! )
Sincerely yours,
Lenny F. Olsnes-Lea

The ideas, 15 years and running, Integrity and Objective Ethics,
this is also /laid down/ over matters such as the Military Complex of USA, "fixed" world poverty also by subversion, The powers of finances by the big corporations, like in mining, oil and gas, most infamously, also others. I am no idiot. Are we getting there?

Under Palliative Medicine/Care, I may yield a slight point on "making the patients wake up a bit in order to speak (sensibly)" with the closest ones. This also makes a duty to utilise good anasthetic practices like setting the drips, rather than imposing one's presence on the patient and this patient's closest ones as they bond or other.
Palliative Medicine is now largely finished and uncontroversial and remains so with the motto: NO PAINS!!!

As well as this clearly files under Objective Ethics, the Suggestions section, then here also:
The Overpopulation Problem
Suggestion for combatting Overpopulation, a dire condition that brings out the worst in people and against animals and wildlife the same:
The governments of the World issue a (steady) /recommendation/ for only one or two children (for each woman, or other standard, issues may arise with homosexuals who desire children, but this needs separate resolve).

Under the recommendation then, this follows, a 3 pt. list,
1. that families will be required by law to pay partly or wholly for the 3rd child as incentive toward right behaviour.
2. that becoming pregnant with a fourth child or giving birth to a fourth child may provoke forced abortion or forced adoption.
3. that becoming pregnant with a fifth child and beyond may trigger forced abortions, forced adoptions, forced sterilizations and removal of legal rights in representing stupor below normal intelligence.

I hope you bother to take note and that we work together, in moving the politics toward better ecology and a better future for all, with as much people in the future gene-tree as possible! Thanks.

(Me? A hard-liner Ecology Philosopher? This files under Applied Ethics and only as suggestion for discussion. Also, point is made for making the discussion /move/ somewhere whatsoever.)

Applied ethics, suggestion/bearing:

From some time now, given the accessibility to information, I think it's mandated that the relevant leaders of the World are to be considered MONSTERS, "well suspended over all humanity", i.e., the inhumanity in them, by the direct consequence of failing people their chance (not instantly guaranteed, I'm sorry to say) to human rights, please see UDHR under UN, as matter of reality, i.e., in practice, in life.

The data-sets of crime (crime statistics) may have been "fixed"/left in the dark, in the social sense, for much of time we know, entire families practically "run over", abused, tortured, maimed, killed, whatever, very much outside the facade official stories we've been told of.

So if they provide leadership counter to human rights, they are to be named MONSTERS!
(See esp. UDHR Art. 3, please.)

The corrupt mind is a very serious condition that may agree/act with all cruelty the World can offer them, EVERYTHING, H*llraiser, so on!

Url: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ .

There are much people living under the letters of human rights, the entire 7,1 Bn people, a number that has 8 0s after the 7 and 1.

(This text, plus the above, as you may infer, carries deep economical consequences.)

Under Objective Ethics and Integrity:
given the inhumanity notions, "to commit inhuman acts against others", that we find,
* to commit inhuman acts against other people must "stand thousand-folds" deeper into inhumanity
than to
* be a victim to inhuman acts because the victim doesn't need to take part in an inhuman psychology/personality (pathology, still under the investigation of level of corrupt mind) to be this victim.
Also, and importantly, to blame a victim for being a victim under inhuman acts is to give way to inhuman psychology (mind the pathology notion, please) on the "idiot's" side, perhaps malignantly or detrimental to the person who is blaming the victim for this!
BEWARE!
(Also in providing character by the Cardinal Virtues.)

Over Ethics and the Modern Society
3 "smoking/charismatic" bulbs/globules of Ethics for the modern society. The apparatus becomes:
1. Main: The Cognitive Ethics - also known as rule-following for laws and regulations in expressing the ethics to live by.
2. Supportive: The Virtue Ethics - the best examples are the cardinal virtues and courage and conscience.
3. Rescue/Emergency Ethics - The Non-Cognitive Ethics, best known as feelings or feeling what's proper for a given situation.
Then it's all up to the courts if you perpetrate. Say it right, will you! ;-)
The practical guide under Practical Philosophy known as Ethics/Applied Ethics. Thank you.
By Lenny F. Olsnes-Lea, 2014-02-27.
(A note, formerly, may have been stolen from me at a nearby bus-junction. Sorry to say.)

To enter a Kantian response is to kill as few people as possible by the original problem by Foot.
- To be the driver of the runaway tram is to say that it's better to be a driver who kills 1 person than 5 persons. That is, by "an idea in the Kingdom of ideas, one chooses the idea in such a manner that ...", paraphrased.
- Either way, one should know that being on the rails poses an increased rate of risk for something to happen (to you) and in some cases "5 people die from it"!

However, it's not obvious that one should (actively) kill to save people. Therefore, in the 2nd example of the article, the Kantian way would be to "cry out a warning as loud as it gets" or other, that is, to do your best so that people do not get killed despite the example says that 5 people are going to die. Well, well, in this example, I let them die.
- Because, if there is a screwed up idea that killing 5 people of a corrupt regime with your bomb to your body is going to save 1000 people the connection isn't that evident and that there are ways in the world where these 1000 people may fend for themselves in a better way, say.
- So there is this rather natural way for events to flow in order to either save people in one way or another or to prevent people falling prone to killings, whatever the reason, natural or man-made.

You work for train-safety in order to prevent train (or tram for the others) deaths or you become a political activist to prevent corrupt people from wielding power. This is the natural vein for being a truly good, Kantian person!

The above relates to the Trolley Problem as proposed solution.

Citizens' action for Democracy:

It should be plain to ask for the medical removal of criminal implants and the complaint to the police for this criminal insertion. To make this easy for people, also in providing the walk-through scanner, should be a duty and an issue for the medical associations in Europe. For Norway, the Legeforeningen.

I'm thinking of tech-eyes, tech-ears, antennaes, neurological chips for bio-electrical-value and brain-implants etc.

So, have you encountered criminal implants? What is your view? Can it be that "haters" exist with Transhumanism? Can Transhumanism be a potential hate-campaign against the (best) natural human being? Other? Thoughts?

The Good People are Superior. Here's why:
* They handle guns and pepperspray well
* They handle economy well
* They are the most intelligent, no cheating included
* They are the most moral and trustworthy
* They can regenerate
* They can reincarnate
* They have superior immune systems
* They are more independent
* They have better cognition
* They have better perception
* They have superior bodies (I guess) and neurologies
* They have superior endurance
* They have superior people skills (for real)
* They are served by superior quantum effects! (Too!)
Etc. etc.

Utilitiarianism and the Trolley Problem "joke" as Reductio ad absurdum of this type of ethics

Let's say that we have this train-conductor that has a choice of running over and killing this one person instead of the group of 5 people on a different track.

If we repeat this "procedure" infinitely, then these 5 people can put themselves in harms way and "present" one person on the other track and in this way kill "infinitely" many people which reduces the group of 5 "cynical" people to a very small group.

Conclusion: Utilitiarianism is not plausible as viable way for ethics!

Link, Reductio ad absurdum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum.

About good people more:
Good people also have superior reproductive capacities.

Investigations into telepathy (priming issues etc.) have shown that
* Good people have superior telepathic ability too

(Because "schizophrenics" require physical connection.)

A comment to the Good People List (see above):
To all good people, 1. Don't take the assurances of death by physicians or others. If the situation turns lethal, prepare to start thinking and use the feelings of the soul, the sensitivities of the brain instead. You can "use" death, the other side of life to all sorts of things, including that good revenge on an idiot (of grande, too). So, please, take it from me: you can regenerate, you can reincarnate, plus 100 tricks more. Life has so much to offer, including that of the soul experience that you will come to know, if not later than dying from old age. So for real, life has two sides for you all: the one in flesh and blood and the one on the other side of "death", that you can undo if you want.

This could have been a scientific statement, but because of a World with great problems, I offer this only as a "religious" statement, one that you can have the pleasure to discover as you see fit! Best wishes.

By the Good people list (see also below)
that good people have best reproductive abilities, I think it's safe to say that good people also have the best sex lives.

At an extreme for the bad people, when their remaining sex life comes down to "enjoying" sewage and watching or taking part in hideous torture, then, clearly, the victory goes to the human being, the good people!

Meanings of Good Will Hunting, the movie, according to this system:
1. element: Orphanage corresponds to No meaning (empty world).
2. element: Violent action gives violent reaction corresponds to a principle of causality. (This element is an issue of discussion.)
3. element: Loyalty corresponds to retained Integrity.
4. element: Science corresponds to Truth.
5. element: The girl and the relationship with her corresponds to his Self-realisation and Happiness.
(6. element:) The overall target meaning with the movie was to prove that Thought is not owned by anyone and therefore the Value of Good Will Hunting in character is undeniable and supreme. Hereby the socialclasses will always be protected from being discredited.

This is written 1998 to 2018, including 23.05.2010, 10.06.2010, 04.07.2010, 17.08.2010, 12.11.2010, 23.11.2010 and 12.07.2011 and comments added now. See comments below for time-stamps.

[Back to the White Room]