Premier Writings on Ethics

I.

Since Hume's Guillotine, philosophers have had more trouble defending the idea of ethics generally. Here is my answer for the principle of ethics and morality:

What is the source of morality?

Perhaps the following:

•A long life (say, infinite) is more valuable than a short life.

•A short life can be forgiven.

Using this principle, the only way to be blamed is if one lives a medium-size life. But such is ridiculous by any standard! Therefore, if we have a standard (longevity or forgiveness), we are forgiven. But there is no getting rid of the standard. Hence morality.

II.

The elements of my relative absolutism incorporate similar thoughts to those had by F. F. Centore. It is possible I read his work by searching for one of the two terms he mentions. In my theory on the subject, which adopts relative absolutism as a knowledge system rather than an ethical system, there are several related conclusions: (1) Relativized relativism = absolutism, (2) A word, or a body, etc. are all adequate foundations for association about an idea, albeit with differing formalities, (3) There is a good for each thing defined for example, by the philosophy or idealism of the thing, which whatever it is, is the thing's capacity to be a concept, (4) There is a system for every true concept; where systems cannot be produced, this means that other concepts can be preferred; there appears to be a conflict between natural systems and philosophical systems that is resolved when philosophical nature is found.

III .

The Notorious "Four Organisms" Puzzle: Ethics Designed for All Alien Organisms

(pick one from each of the four areas)

1. Shared category
| --> Fixed Important.
| --> Open-ended Important.
| --> Open-ended Unimportant
| --> Fixed Unimportant

2. Ethical modus operandi
|--> Status Quo.
|--> Pleasure.
|--> Principle.
|--> Need.

3. Personal Modus Operandi
|--> Job.
|--> Family.
|--> Artist.
|--> Outcast.

4. Personal Feelings / Virtues
|--> Justice.
|--> Love.
|--> Superiority.
|--> Buddhism.


IV.

What is actually concrete is actually concrete, and what is actually sublime is actually sublime—- but only by whatever exception grants that view. The truth might be different from perception, but degrees of perception are the closest thing to the concrete. They are not always the closest thing to the sublime, but if the sublime can be perceived, then this may mean at least that SOMETHING IS sublime

Also present on Quora: https://nathancoppedge.quora.com/Premier-Writings-on-Ethics

New Foundation for Morality...

Since Hume's Guillotine, philosophers have had more trouble defending the idea of ethics generally. Here is my answer for the principle of ethics and morality:

"What is the source of morality? Perhaps the following: •A long life is more valuable than a short life. •A short life can be forgiven. Using this principle, the only way to be blamed is if one lives a medium-size life. But such is ridiculous by any standard! Therefore, if we have a standard (longevity or forgiveness), we are forgiven. But there is no getting rid of the standard. Hence morality."
----Nathan Coppedge

Babel, Babble, the Bible and God

https://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2015/08/things-ive-learned-from-german.html

GHOSTS DIE OF REINCARNATION

I have noticed that it seems what makes something bad when-it-has-not-before-been-judged is merely the quality of denying judgment. But this quality of denying judgment has nothing directly to do with the ultimate judgment of the organism in question.

Similarly, what makes a soul evil is the temptation to think evil is meaningful. Because if evil is not meaningful to the person, they must remain blameless. For example, if the person is dishonest about evil being meaningful, then lying is either good or evil. But if the person is honest about evil being meaningful, the person has established a relationship with evil. So, if the person thinks evil is meaningful, this is the only way to be tempted from good into evil.

And the temptation from good into evil is more often than not comes from spiritual authorities who think it is appropriate to convey the existence of a battle between good and evil. Additionally, evil is also war, because the concept of war has snuck into the temptation to consider good versus evil.

So, in what way does the philosopher or priest avoid the temptation of evil, if he must be judged, but if he already believes there is a 'war' between good and evil, a war in which he must 'fight' and therefore commit evil?

At what point does the metaphorical image of battling evil become too intolerable for a moral person? In this respect I suggest we are deceived, for not only would true spirituality not emphasize the true destruction of evil, but true spirituality must be good and pure enough that the priority to preconceive judgement would be enough in itself to serve as a temptation.

What is suggested is that true goodness depends on some concept of the will, some defense of the soul, some abeyance equivalent to a good condition, or some sort of pre-conceived forgiveness. For otherwise, as soon as someone comes under judgment, they are pre-conceived to be evil, simply because it must remain inappropriate to judge them.

Although Jesus may write that the innocent remain blameless of sin.

"Mark the blameless and behold the upright, for there is a future for the man of peace." Psalm 37:37

"That you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world..." Philippians 2:15

"So that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless..." Philippians 1:10


These expressions suggest that innocence and peace are what is blameless, but also being Jewish (those who are most adamant about being the people of God are Jewish, although I am not) and having good taste.

So, I guess I am right to say that good people should remain free of judgment from others or else be tempted to become evil.

This confirms my own theory that friendships and social conformity are basically a fool's game designed to test the strengths of one's pre-conceived modality and one's sense of goodness.

When the pre-conceived modality goes out the window, all that is left is goodness. Then if one is judged, the goodness disappears in a hazy cloud of pejority. One is no longer chosen by God or a person of good-taste. One is not even innocent, and by not being innocent, one becomes blameworthy.

On top of it all whatever God there is has given in to temptation by accepting original sin, and making those who have done the least harm most guilty of pure judgment.

If judgment is an engagement with the question of evil, isn't it a temptation involving 'the hands we wash are washed in sin'? It appears that if someone is blameless, any form of judgment is a sin, including the question of judgment!

But then, how are they judged to be blameless? The answer is that the activity of judgment must always adopt some of the blame. Without judgment the innocent person may not have any rancour which would lead to pride & prejudice. A very significant point.

If rancour is a symptom of evil, then how is evil to be opposed? Or are we supposed to conclude that evil opposes itself?

If evil opposes itself then two enemies must be the same person! But that is simply not the case!

We must conclude that pride and prejudice precede evil, and what comes before pride and prejudice is likely to be judgment.

The pre-conception of evil therefore seems a likely cause of evil in general, so long as the good remains desirable and some people remain blameless.

If no one is blameless then there is no point arguing from Job or the Messiah, because what is blameless becomes simply a gift from God.

Over 4200 views to my academic articles

at AcademicRoom.com.

Link to my profile HERE.

The Book of Paradoxes: Including Problems Encountered in Nathan Coppedge's Philosophy

BOOK DESCRIPTION

This author has authored numerous philosophical books. In this brief treatise, questions of knowledge are broached through the lens of twenty-four compound paradoxes. The fields covered by these writings are broad: theory, metaphysics, ethics, and systemology. Coppedge’s thesis is that all problems reduce to essentialism and causality. Solutions are proposed to a line of paradoxes which lead to the paradox of essence and cause. Finally, a kind of solution to essence and cause is provided. Also included in this book is a valuable list of problems discovered by the author in investigating the realm of philosophy, even beyond paradoxy.

The book may be found on Amazon HERE.

Update: up to 19th from 28th in a search for 'book of paradoxes' on Amazon books.

Also 363 for "paradoxes". Oh well.