Ethics is not just an idea, or a set of ideas; it's a way of life.
If we have any obligations at all -- and I believe we have one -- we are obliged to be good.

The question then becomes: how can an individual be good? Virtue Ethics offers some suggestions. The new paradigm for Ethics, the Hartman/Katz theory of Ethics, incorporates the best ideas from VT as well as from other known theories in moral philosophy, and stresses that we are to apply what we believe to be our moral standards, apply these principles in our daily life. Check out this synthesis of all the best concepts from the theories with which you are familiar. Study it. You'll be glad you did.

Greetings, Tom
Your first paragraph quoted above informs me that you are using a different definition of "morality" than I am. I gave mine toward the bottom of my first post in this thread. Also gave further details in the third chapter of THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS paper; a link to it is given at the top of my previous posst in this thread.

agree with the thrust of your second paragraph. Any primitive assumption for a system (including a systematic Ethics theory - which is what I solicit your cooperation to help build) will be subjective.

In my first post, the o.p. above, I tried to convey that a presentation of academic material in a classroom (no matter how technical) which can be properly described as 'objective' is in fact,inter-subjective. In stating this I think I may be in accord with Jurgen Habermas.

My attempt to get this point across may not have been clear enough. The lesson (say in Ethics as science) was put on the whiteboard, and so in that one sense it is objective; yet anything said by humans has to be subjecttive, for we conceive of it, and we are conscious autonomous subjects.

{We have freedom of thought even if we are in a Chinese concentration camp, or in a Gulag.} Many people, in recentt history, though, have been gaslighted and brainwashed by Donald, the disgrased defeated ex-president. They didn't know their Ethics, or their conscience was not awake upon first encountering him. An individuaal with a sensitive conscience would have immediately detected a phony and a grifter when he ridiculed and attempted to humiliate his fellow candidates for the nomination.

Most people consider virtue ethics as an ethical system opposed by consequentialism, deontology, and consequentialism. However, I don't think that that is true, as virtue ethics tries to answer the question "how do we ought to be ?" while consequentialism, deontologism and other views on ethics tries to answer the question "what do we ought to do ?". — Hello Human

I wrestled with this very question seven years ago. The way I solved the problem is
1) A better theory than the traditional three you mention is an ethical theory that does not have "action" as its central concept but rather makes "good character" as its primary orientation.

2) The three most well-known schools of thought form a hierarchy, with rules-based approaches worth the least value, ends-based approaches are better but still not the best; and character-based theories being at the top of the hierarchy. They - the ideas in Modern VT - are the very best of the lot. And I give reasons why this is so: I justify my claim. See pages 7-12 here:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LIVING%20WELL-How%20ethics%20helps%20us%20flourish.pdf

One might think to himself: I want to make a lot of money. Then I can pursue my ambitions, and be a success! " I'll have money (or power, or influence.) Or I'll have recognition (or fame, or celebrity)."
But all this is a moral fallacy. The guy has it backwards and upside down:

Before you can do or have, you are to BE. Once you have practical wisdom, moral courage, moderation and know how to neither overdo nor under-do ...or, more correctly: how how to not over-value something nor under-value it ...whatever it may be: a situation, a thing, an event, a conception, a perception or an experience.
An individual of good character has good qualities. I discuss these in my writings, the latest of which is THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS. - http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/THE%20STRUCTURE%20OF%20ETHICS.pdf

See also the references it offers within that text in order to get a fuller and deeper understanding of the new paradigm for Ethics which it describes and which it offers for your consideration.

Also examine and reflect upon the content of my recent two discussions here at this Forum: Why a new approach is needed and How to tell a good character from a bad one. The good character I am talking about has what used to be called "the virtues."
To know what I mean when I call something "good" see the first few sections in the booklet, Marviin C. Katz, ETHICS: A College Course. {A search on Bing or Firefox will bring it up for your reading enjoyment.} Robert S. Hartman, a great professional philosopher, and a genius, gets the credit for an in-context definition of the concept: ' x is a good C'
C here refers to the concept under which x falls. For example, "This is a good thread." Hartman explained what makes anything good.

Your comments or questions are most welcome!

Greetings, Tom
Your first paragraph quoted above informs me that you are using a different definition of "morality" than I am. I gave mine toward the bottom of my first post in this thread. Also gave further details in the third chapter of THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS paper; a link to it is given at the top of my previous posst in this thread.

agree with the thrust of your second paragraph. Any primitive assumption for a system (including a systematic Ethics theory - which is what I solicit your cooperation to help build) will be subjective.

In my first post, the o.p. above, I tried to convey that a presentation of academic material in a classroom (no matter how technical) which can be properly described as 'objective' is in fact,inter-subjective. In stating this I think I may be in accord with Jurgen Habermas.

My attempt to get this point across may not have been clear enough. The lesson (say in Ethics as science) was put on the whiteboard, and so in that one sense it is objective; yet anything said by humans has to be subjecttive, for we conceive of it, and we are conscious autonomous subjects.

{We have freedom of thought even if we are in a Chinese concentration camp, or in a Gulag.} Many people, in recentt history, though, have been gaslighted and brainwashed by Donald, the disgrased defeated ex-president. They didn't know their Ethics, or their conscience was not awake upon first encountering him. An individuaal with a sensitive conscience would have immediately detected a phony and a grifter when he ridiculed and attempted to humiliate his fellow candidates for the nomination.

[url]http:// http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/THE%20STRUCTURE%20OF%20ETHICS.pdf [/url]
i agree with hypericin that "justice" is a quite-important concept in
Ethics -- especially Social Justice at present. The Unified Theory of Ethics, the new paradigm based on the work of Robert S. Hartman in Value Theory [which is meta-ethics] is what I mean when I say "Ethics."
I do believe it can be objective, in both an Epistemic and everyday, ordinary sense of the word, for the reason that acts of kindness, v. .olunteer service, donations, assumptions of responsibility, manifestations of human decency take place daily in this world. That is evidence; that is data to be ordered and explained by a logical framework, a system, that would constitute the seeds of a genuine scientific theory.
In fact I would go further and claim that if one considers Psychology to be a science, then that branch of Psych that deals with matters of ethical concern, namely Moral Psychology, which employs experiments to establish correlations, assigns degrees of reliability to its findings, indexes and dates its conclusions, admits that those are all tentative and subject to further investigation and update, etc.,ethics is already, in a sense, science!![/u

To learn more about the Unified Theory of Ethics, peruse the pdf text, a link to which is offered at the top of this post. This is my latest effort at writing. I could have done better by placing what is now Ch. 1 as an Epilogue. I ought to have started right off with the chapter: What is Ethics? So it is recommended you skip to that when studying the manuscript. ...the first chapter, on "structure," may be off-putting because to most folks structure is boring.
In my original post of this thread there occurs an update, on the best way to interpret and understand the concept "morality" in the lens of this new paradigm for ethics. So check that out, and see why it's an improvement. It is, so to speak, Morality(sub)2.

Thank you for being welcoming, Proof.

Every manuscript I have published on Kindle I also have available for you in pdf. form. So tell me what the item is to which you refer, and how or whether I can get a moderator's permission to let you have a link to a place to read it on the worldwide web or the internet.

I failed to make my position clear.
I shall try again. I believe we all project our own reality. I hold that there is, in practice, no such thing as objectivity: only subjectivity.
There can be, and often is, a "meeting of minds." We do find an overlapping of individual's projections ...such that we get a consensus now and then, an agreement. - and this is a happy coincidence.

What I am arguing is that "objectivity" is shared subjectivity. For example, "George Washington was the first U.S. President" is 'an objective fact' only because a consensus of reporters and historians have agreed that it is, and the rest of us are willing to accept this as so! [I;m sure there are a few exceptions, since there always are.]
We cannot get the subjectivity out of any human assertion. There is, I will grant, a thin line between fact and value, a line which is a bottomless chasm: "Value" and "fact" are distinct concepts. Facts are perceived by our senses. And any decision we make is, hopefully, grounded in facts as well as being partially a value-judgment.

My post attempted to make the case that if something can be put on the blackboard in a classroom of students eager to learn and to make sense out of what they see there, that maybe is enough to render it as "obfective." And this would apply equally to lessons in geometry or lessons in Ethics, when the lattrer has been systematized, put into a framework where its terms are related to one another, and has been generated by a fertile concept (which could be designated as "an Axiom."
Thanks to Formal Axiology employed as a meta-ethics, Ethics is now at a point where this has been achieved. [Ask Google for M.C. Katz, Unified Theory of Ethics.] I have written several other booklet-length texts since that one. {Being new here, I am not sure I can offer you links to those however ...even though they are free of charge. and even though I am making an assumption here that anyone here is that interrested in a semi-scientific Ethics theory.}
(If such an "inquiring mind" exists, he or she could perhaps sens me a memo, a private message, to that effect.) Maybe, perhaps, I could hear from a Moderator as to whether I will get banned if I give a link to a free pdf. for those who want more detail on a topic. (?)

BTW
L'éléphant wrote: " One of the examples that's commonly used by philosophers is the existence of a triangle. This is what I would call the epitome of objective reality, if I believe in objective reality. "

A triangle does NOT exist; it only consists as a conception in the mind.. Here below, is an application of the basic Dimensions of Value described in the early pages of BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach by yours truly -- ask in a search box for it -- the Dimensions are S (for Systrmic Value) E(for Eztrinsic Value) and I(for Intrinsic Value They were conceived of, and rigorously explained by Dr. Robert S. Hartman. You can read up on this polymath genius in Wikipedia. [See also the entry there captioned Science of Value.]

When those Dimension areapplied to Ontology, we get:

S: Essence E: Existence I: Reality

Essences consist. Existents exist. Realities persist.

Modern Virtue Ethics proves to be a more sound and comprehensive theory of ethics than Consequentialism.

An individual becomes ethical when he or she regards another individual as precious, as having uncountable value.

That is why murder or doing any sort of harm is wrong. The death on one is tragic for those who loved that person. The killing of more-than-one is even more of a moral violation.

For further details and reasoned argument see the my papers, essays, and booklets. Ask Bing. For your convenience, I'll offer here a safe-to-open link to one of these writings:

http://tinyurl.com/nrnb4t4 ... ....Its title is: HOW ETHICS HELPS US FLOURISH. Happy reading!

Yes, Baker. You are right about that.

When I became a vegetarian I had four or five reasons for it. The ethical considerations were only one of my motives for doing so. I did not like the working conditions in the slaughter-houses.. Do you?

Save the planet; it is our habitat.

Get in harmony with nature!

Comments? Questions?

Of course Psych evolved from Philosophy. All the sciences did.

In this specific case, it was The Philosophy of Mind.

Philosophy is "the mother of the sciences."
Why?

Because, by Dr. Robert S. Hartman's definition, in his magnum opus, THE STRUCTURE OF VALUE,

pHILOSOPHY is the continuous clarification and analysis of vague concepts - while

SCIENCE is the continuous clarification and analysis of pprecise concepts.

The latter concepts are terms in a framework, in a systematic theory.

Questions? Comments?

I can contribute by relating my own experience. I became a lacto-ovo vegetarian at age 18 and now am 91 years old. A lacto-ovo veggie is one who may eat an egg, and imbibe in some dairy-product. Since I started with this diet, I have never again eaten any meat. After the first couple of months, I have never even missed the taste of meat. I am extremely healthy ...hardly ever experience an ache or a pain. This is because I eat a scientific diet governed by three principles: fresh, raw, and whole.

So I can reasonably assert that eating meat is NOT more healthy; as Louis believes it is.

By not feeding them (via supliments) adequate nutrition, thru the years, my eyes have bcome weaker, and tinnitus is lessening my hearing. . However, I virtually- never get sick. I give the plant-based diet the credit. Get your food organically-grown if at all possible. Eat it as fresh as possible. Emphasize raw salads; and for protein a handful of raw nuts every day. Eat a LOW-protein diet. You will see the difference in how well you will feel!!

p.s. I am a professor of Values and Ethics; so if you are interested in that field, ask me any questions ...or search out and read my latest writing, an essay entitled THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS.
Your impressions of it. ...may take two hours of your time to peruse it straight through. Reflect upon it and tell us what you think -- review it.

Questions? Comments?