Adding Value Is What It's All About

[deepthot]

ADDING VALUE IS WHAT IT’S ALL ABOUT

It occurred to me – and of course I may be wrong – that a basic concept for ethics could be added value. The ethical objective is to add value to the situations in which one finds himself or herself.

To live smoothly within the various groups (with which we find ourselves involved) we behave civilly and show courtesy and manners. This is one of the ways we add value to social interactions.

Some writers here have argued that that is all there is to ethics – that all ethics is Social Ethics. One Forum view insisted that how we express respect in the groups to which we belong – the degree of closeness we have to our families and our other social circles – is the proper study for ethics.

Hue-man, among others, is aware that an individual’s decision whether to take recreational drugs, or to mutilate himself, or to be a grumpy cynic, or to be a cheater and conniver; or – in contrast – whether to eat so as to stay healthy; are ethical concerns as well. This is the field of Individual Ethics. Shall I make self-improvement a goal? Shall I aim for (moral) goodness? Do I want to take on responsibility? Do I care if others endure needless suffering? And if so, can I, or will I, intervene in some way to help relieve that suffering? In other words, Do I aspire to add value?

This area of ethics – Individual Ethics – logically takes priority over Social Ethics because if one is a sadist, a psychopath with some violent tendencies, or if a person takes glee in cruelty, this will definitely affect how a person will behave in a group.

In the layman’s mind, ethics has to do with conduct in one’s profession or associations, and – many believe mistakenly – ethical standards are restrictive of a person’s natural tendencies to cheat, steal, cut corners, bait-and-switch in his business dealings, and get away with as little output for as much return as he can. Some believe it is human nature to be manipulative, because they see it all around them every day. [The latter, however, is a narrow perspective: rural villagers in Africa, say, or in China, are communal-minded and live in a kind of loving, sharing harmony. Once they migrate to a city they acquire greed and insecurity.]

I propose that adding value be the one norm, or operating principle that we need to have to incentivize and to motivate us in the ethical direction.
{It already is an imperative in business among the enlightened. When applied to a subset of Ethics known as Business Ethics it implies that an owner, or a proprietor, or a CEO, would give equal attention to profits, to customers, to employees and staff, to the community where it does business, and to the environment. Consideration to “the bottom line”, to profits, enables the firm to stay in business; consideration to the other factors enables it to be fully ethical. And yes, I know there are differences between business and the moral life of individuals: I am not conflating the two.}

With regard to motivation, self-definition plays a large role: If one defines himself as one who loves or enjoys x, then it will be so much easier to accomplish x than if one does not. “x” here may be, for example, exercise; or doing math; or complimenting others sincerely at every opportunity. All of these may be good ways of adding value. Your Self-development can add value by your becoming a role model for other members of society. The more you add value to yourself, the more you can contribute.

This has been just a glimpse at some of the applications of what may turn out to be a central principle for Ethics. The notion of adding value may be just what we have been searching for, as we seek to know the truth in this field of study known as Ethics.

[ValueRanger]

Value-adding theory, or Value Theory, is an outstanding work.

Well done.

[deepthot]

Originally Posted by ValueRanger

Value-adding theory, or Value Theory, is an outstanding work.

Well done.

Thank you, ValueRanger for you views on my humble effort at making sense of, and attempting to synthesize the various known schools of ethics, and the contributions to this Forum which seek a central principle that unifies the field, such as, for example, the thread of Patriarch recommending win/win relationships and the mutual benefit that follows. To seek such relations is still another way of adding value. And I agree with you on the importance of differentiation, especially, when applied to ethics, of self-differentiation.

Ethics, as I define it, is a body of knowledge, just as is Physiology/Anatomy, or Psychology/Sociology. Ethics is a perspective on human beings, in which they are regarded in a certain specific way -- namely, as infinitely-valuable treasures, not to be defiled; as organisms with a wide range of conceptions, perceptions and experience, capable of deep feelings and deep thoughts; as creatures having a story to tell ...if one succeeds in getting them talking ..about their life, including their inner-life.

Dr. Jonathan Haidt, does resarch in Moral Psychology, and has a Moral Foundations page in which he describes universal human nature - whether it is based upon our evolutionary and tribal past, or whether we have brain modules for the way we behave is not the main topic here. But we do tend to behave in certain ways and to believe certain prevalent ideas. Science (especially psychotherapy) has shown this. Procrasination, perfectionism, perversions, fetishisms, over-generalizations are very common among us human beings.

There are ethical fallacies such as racism, sexism, rankism, speciesism, regarding persons as mere things -- and thus it's okay to abuse them, or discard them; or, even worse, treating them as numbers -- and thus it's okay to erase them.

For details, see pages 30-32 HERE: http://www.wadeharvey.com/Ethics_A_College_Course.pdf

If ethics has a purpose, I would say it is for an indiviidual to integrate his/her outer self with his inner Self; to eventually become aware that we are all one, in a sense. The purpose is to match up with the highest ideals for a human being; to become Cosmic Optimists, to become our humble self, our compassionate self, to gain in empathy, to become aware of where our true interests are: to have Enlightened Self-interest, viz., to know that what helps you, helps me ...if it really helps you ....and conversely.

To say it another way, our purpose is to create, and add, value. If we want to gain value in life we will pursue ethics and morality. The most valuable life is the most meaningful life. We will not want to just drift along, nor to vegetate; we will want to create a meaningful life. Finding out how - and doing it - will be the fulfilment of the purpose.

I'd like to hear your views on all this. Any questions, comments or critiques?

A moral philosopher to whom I sent a link to the first post in this thread, requesting a critique, wrote the following: “I agree with everything you have expressed in your latest writing effort.
However, the question that arose as I was reading was as follows:
How does one achieve this added value? One must be aware of him/herself and be detached from the negative thoughts, impulses, and negative conditioning from external sources.
Therefore, one needs to know how to work on him/herself.

Maybe the next step is to put together some ways in which people can practice working on their being so they can achieve what you have beautifully expressed.”

He is advocating self-improvement as a way of adding value to the world. There are many sites on the internet which have something to say in this regard. They give free lessons on how it is done. I’d be glad to email to any reader who requests it a list of such links arranged by topic of interest.

A second reviewer remarked: “you have explored an aspect of ethics that many don't consider. You are correct that adding value is really what it should be about. To simply follow a social norm is not necessarily additive. Adding value makes an individual and society better.”

That’s what they said. What say you?

[ValueRanger]

Originally Posted by deepthot

That’s what they said. What say you?

As I've stated in other posts, the consistent mathematical progression of mutually value-adding exchange in our give-and-take reality, is the foundation of sustainability.

Person A does 5 or 6 six behaviors efficiently, in a modular scale, as does Person B, C, D, E, and F. Each person does the other's weaker set, stronger. So, therefore, a sliding scale of self-interest is the highest and best civilization.

It is when the Golden Ratio gets too expanded or contracted, that entropy accelerates. A too-free civilization invokes its opposite in skewed distribution of essential needs, and a too-constrictive civilization invokes too much of a vacillation in needed aesthetics.

Aside from studying Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, this is a good read.

[jgweed]

To complete this analysis of value-added ethics, it seems two questions suggest themselves.

First, how is the value-to-be-added determined?
Second, in the case of general values (say of the group or humanity as a whole) conflicting with personal values, how and who determines which set of values wins?

[ValueRanger]

Originally Posted by jgweed

To complete this analysis of value-added ethics, it seems two questions suggest themselves.

First, how is the value-to-be-added determined?
Second, in the case of general values (say of the group or humanity as a whole) conflicting with personal values, how and who determines which set of values wins?

Individual needs hierarchies in constant, proximal negotiation.

If B lacks sequitur from A, then C.

[deepthot]

Originally Posted by jgweed

To complete this analysis of value-added ethics, it seems two questions suggest themselves.

First, how is the value-to-be-added determined?
Second, in the case of general values (say of the group or humanity as a whole) conflicting with personal values, how and who determines which set of values wins?

Greetings, jigweed

Thank you for the good questions.

The more people know about values and the existential hierarchy of values that is generated by Formal Axiology the easier it will be for them to determine which is the most appropriate value to add to the specific situation. That hierarchy is summed up by the formula: I > E >S. Intrinsic Value trumps Extrinsic Value which, in turn, trumps Systemic Value. We can't go wrong if we bring love into the situation, if we affirm life, or joy, or create a random act of beauty or kindness.

The hierarchy implies that all the theories and ideologies in the world aren't worth as much as one material thing; and all the things in the world aren't worth as much as one individual life. I will list some of the Intrinsic values in a new thread which I will name The Meaning of Life. They include integrity, liberty, fellowship, community, responsibility, involvement, empathy, etc.
For details, see the paper The Measurement of Value by R. S. Hartman. Here is a link to it: The Measurement of Value

You ask about the value to be added. If when you enter a room you radiate a healing blessing, and people there feel like a plant that has been watered, you are adding the right value.

You further inquire: "...in the case of general values (say of the group or humanity as a whole) conflicting with personal values, how and who determines which set of values wins?"

Before I can answer that beyond what has been said above, it would help to know what specific conflict you have in mind. I need a specific case to analyzee. I believe I have already given you the guidline clues so that you can answer this yourself. There are though two books I could recommend:
R. M. Kidder, HOW GOOD PEOLE MAKE TOUGH CHOICES: Resolving the dilemmas of ethical living (NY:Simon & Schuster Fireside Books, 1995). See especially pp. 220-221.
Wayne W. Dyer, THERE'S A SPIRITUAL SOLUTION TO EVERY PROBLEM (NY: HarperCollins, 2001)

[salima]

hi deepthot-
i read wayne dyer years ago, he's a good self-improvement and self knowledge source.
i had the thought that an act can be good and add value without being virtuous. would you say that moral, ethical and virtuous are the same? for instance, bill gates gives money to charity and gains goodwill (which he needs) from the buying public, tax deductions, and let us hypothetically suppose that these are his only motivations. has he done a virtuous deed? he has certainly done a good deed-and it is not unethical or immoral-or is it? if he is deceiving the world that is immoral-if he is deceiving himself that is immoral.
suppose he has the motivations i mention and he clearly states that so there is no deception. has he done anything moral or ethical with his contributions?
just wondered what would be your opinion on that...

and i personally feel that the most virtuous acts will benefit the doer much more than anyone else, because he is becoming more integrated internally and with the outside world as well, which is about the best thing i can imagine.
i know that is included in what you have been writing about, if not here in this thread then in other areas, if i understand you correctly.

[deepthot]

I was going to post this separately as a new thread, but in keeping with a suggestion I received from Jigweed I will post it here, as it does speak to the question of how to add value. I am well aware that there are nihilists among us who claim that (to them) life has no meaning. Perhaps one of the members here can suggest a better meaning of human life than the one I offer here. I'd be very happy to consider it. The question was raised: "Just how do we add value?" I would reply, It is by fulfilling your purpose:

THE MEANING OF LIFE

The meaning or purpose of life is to express love, truth, beauty, creativity, and individuality.

More exactly said, the meaning of human life -- which is the form of life most evolved toward pure meaning (value) -- is to express Goodness.

What is Goodness? It is the highest value; it is a synergistic package of qualities such as integrity, uniqueness, amity, fidelity, purity, loveability, radiance, empathy, spirituality, (or soul.) It is reality, morality, veracity, and fellowship. It is family-spirit and devotion to community.

It is diversity within unity. It is also responsibility and liberty. It is following one’s conscience. It is autonomy. It is freedom and joy and bliss.

Let us not overlook that, in addition, Goodness is serenity combined harmoniously with authenticity. It is thanksgiving and celebration. In short, it is everything good.

To merge with Goodness, to serve it, to unite with it, to express it on this Earth, is the purpose of human life.

Think about it.

[deepthot]

Kate Douglas, Feature Editor of The New Scientist journal in Great Britain, has written this article which I am sure members of this Forum will find to be of deep interest. It appeared in the August 5, 2009 edition of the magazine, in issue #2720. I believe you will be impressed once you read this over:

"If you believe there is no such thing as altruism, you are in good company. In The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins writes that we must "try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish". Even if we are nice to members of our family, that doesn't count because there is a pay-off, at least in biological terms: they share some of our genes, so by helping them we indirectly further our own genetic immortality. Meanwhile, other acts of seeming altruism are often just reciprocity. If you scratch my back, then I scratch yours - no matter how much later - that's not selfless either.

This all makes good evolutionary sense, since spending time and energy helping someone without any return puts you at a distinct disadvantage in the survival stakes. The only trouble is that in recent years evidence has amassed that people do commit acts of genuine altruism. In experimental game-playing situations, for example, many people will share money with a stranger even when there is nothing in it for them. This has led biologists to conclude that altruism is a part of human nature. What they cannot decide is how or why it evolved.

People with a certain version of a gene called AVPR1 are more altruistic than the average

According to Robert Trivers of Rutgers University in New Jersey, pure altruism is a mistake. He argues that natural selection favoured humans who were altruistic because in the small, close-knit groups in which our ancestors lived, altruists could expect reciprocity. However, in our globalised world where many of our interactions are with people we do not know and may never meet again, our altruistic tendencies are misguided: they are unlikely to be reciprocated and are therefore maladaptive.


Others disagree. They accept that altruism cannot be a product of genetic evolution, but argue that ever since our ancestors began to shape their own environment through culture, we have evolved by a process of genetic and cultural co-evolution. As well as favouring traits that benefit individuals, this can also select traits that benefit one group over another - and that is how altruism evolved. Altruism is crucial for social cohesion. And groups that are more cohesive are more likely to survive in interactions with other groups.


At a mechanistic level, gene-culture co-evolution makes sense. There are clear social mechanisms that promote altruism: for example, fear of punishment, reputation building, ideas of fairness and inculcation by religious or authority figures. There are also indicators that altruism has biological roots. Brain imaging reveals that it stimulates the reward centres of our brains. What's more, it would appear that people with a certain version of a gene called AVPR1 are more altruistic than the average. Their brains are more susceptible to the effects vasopressin, a feel-good hormone implicated in social bonding (Genes, Brain and Behavior, vol 7, p 266). Of course some might argue that if random acts of kindness give us a mental buzz, then this is not pure altruism after all."
(emphasis added).


Let us know of your impressions of this, including of its revelations of the latest facts concerning the crucial topic of 'altruism' -- a topic central to Ethics.