[fusion event]Values and Valuing

This will be a bit different format -- as I did not create a custom seed for this discussion. I instead copied over a blog post from my Substack account. Here is the link:
https://open.substack.com/pub/dcleve/p/value-and-valuing?r=1g756n&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%20viewer

A key realization in my own personal philosophical development, was realizing the role of valuing.

From introspection, a central feature of my own psychology is valuing. And from applying Theory of Mind to the world, every other conscious agent, ALSO is continually applying valuing to the world.
However, outside of minds – there does not appear to BE any other value in the world. Inert matter is – normatively inert. And by derivative implication, where morals and ethics are a subset of normativity – inert matter is also ethically inert. The ONLY THINGS that really matter in our world, therefore, are values, and valuing. And the only things that do that valuing or hold values are conscious minds.
This insight set me on a path to understand morality and ethics, to try to answer the core philosophic question of “how should one live”.

Virtue ethics.
Embracing values and valuing is an intrinsically Virtue Ethics approach, and Virtue Ethics is where I have mostly settled in my ethics investigation. Virtue ethics is pretty diverse, and includes the pragmatic virtues of Confucius, the rigid warrior code of the Samurai, and the loyalty communities of crime gangs. The most appealing version of Virtue Ethics I have found are the three Higher virtues: Truth, Love, and Beauty/Creativity.

How does one apply these higher virtues to life?

Basically, there are four. The original virtue I noted of Agency – which is to act and engage with life, to create value through that engagement. There are three primary refinements of Agency: Beauty/Creativity channels that agency into the creative process. This is the central motive of artists and artisans. Truth channels that agency into the knowledge paths of science, math, philosophy, and learning in general. Love/caring channels that agency into empathy, healing, teaching, and positive social interactions, and is the motive behind Ethics.

How these higher virtues are cashed out is – a matter of opinion. As a philosopher, my earliest higher Value was Truth. However, reading about the Nazi experiments on concentration camp victims, and the early psychology research before ethics panels vetted academic studies, it because clear to me that unmitigated pursuit of Truth is not and cannot be the actual highest Virtue. Likewise, that same evaluation of the use of beautiful poetry, architecture, cinema, statues, etc to glorify Imperialism, Nazism, Fascism, and Communism convinced me that Beauty/Creativity likewise cannot be the highest Virtue. Similarly, I have encountered pursuers of Agency, who consider experiencing ALL experiences, including cruelty and domination, as the highest virtue (reference Nietzsche’s SuperMan, and the abuses of the Epstein class), that likewise convinced me that Agency needs to be guided by the other virtues. Of these higher Virtues, I value Love above all the others. However, we need the full set. Pursuit of Love without extending agency into the world, or finding valid Truths that matter, or creating the art and crafts which move us – is a less Virtuous approach to life. MY opinion places them in the order of Love, then Truth, then Agency, then Beauty.

How to apply ethics
I consider other ethical thinking to primarily be an effort to better implement Love virtue. Love, after all, is fairly abstract, and implementation of it, is not necessarily straightforward. Confucian, or Buddhist life guidance, the classical Virtues of the Greek culture, -- these are not the higher virtues, but ARE often highly useful guidance on specific ethical questions. AUtilitarina Calculus is and effort to reduce caring for others to an algorithm, so that we don’t need to apply our uneven judgment in case after case. Rights Ethics are geared around harm minimization toward others, which is a critical Love question in community interactions. Legalism and contractualism are likewise ways to try to implement caring for others into the complexities of community. Communal ethics makes the community the center of ethical thinking because of how central communal health is to human thriving. Deep Ecology extends community to the entire biosphere, as the agents we should love are not just human. All of these I see as ways to try to clarify how to implement a Love/empathy ethic more effectively.

Again, which of these approaches is the most fruitful, is a matter of opinion. MY opinion, is that straight up Higher virtue thinking, is useful even without recourse to the other ethical methods. But yes, it can sometimes mislead us, or simply be too vague. So I have collected the best of the above set, and use the Higher virtues, plus Utility, Rights theory, Eusociality, and Deep Ecology/Gaia – as a suite of tools that are useful to guide my moral thinking.

How this thinking ties into the rest of philosophy?

Note I have not referenced Meta Ethics, nor Ontology theories at all here.
These thoughts have strongly influenced my meta ethics, and ontic theories.
I am a moral realist, and spiritual dualist, and both are inspired by my thinking above. But materialists, pan-psychists, and moral anti-realists could, I think, adopt some variant of this thinking and use it effectively.

Adding questions:

>> The basic approach I was taking here is called "foundationalist" in building up a worldview. For me, foundationalism just makes more sense than other worldview methodologies, but one can do coherentist, or wholist or intuitivist approaches to building a worldview. Dewcartes took a basically foundationalist approach to philosophy, and also began with phenomenal experience. What do you folks think of foundationalism? Alternatives?

>> What do you folks think of the starting point I began with, values and valuing? Is this a useful starting point? Note I began with a first person perspective, and experiential phenomenology as givens. Rationalist philosophy for example starts with reasoning and logic, rather than phenomenology, to build up a worldview. Where would alternative starting points lead?

The differences in starting points, and in methodology, are why philosophies are so diverse in the world.

>> Do you agree with my inferences to value realism, and conscious Agency's role in creating value? Are there alternative assumptions one can take besides the ones I chose to build up this worldview?

We meet in person and online.
In person will be at 10113 Seattle Slew Lane. This meetup location does not have food for sale. I will bring several large pizzas, and will request $2/slice. Tap water is available, please bring any other drinks desired.
Online will be: https://teams.live.com/meet/93583191724730?p=hY3jxVvnOciVl2aRn5