Why needed

 Information scarce

 Scientific investigation

 Single principle theorists

 Many moralities theorists

 Drop moral philosophy
 and develop moral
 science theorists

 20th century emotivists





 Criteria for a model


 General systems theory

 Emergent ethical theory



 Key points

For the future


From the Historical Collection of the work of Dr. Clare W. Graves of William R. Lee, March 2001




This essay asserts that we cannot find the schematic basis for constructing a model within the world of philosophical or religious thought nor in the more generally accepted approaches to science. It says that we must look elsewhere, which is why the model is developed from within the

ways of thinking of General Systems theorists. 


General Systems Theory promotes the appearance of structural similarities or isomorphies in different fields. It looks for correspondences In the principles which govern the behavior of entities which are intrinsically, widely different. General Systems Theory permits one to view behavior as

an ordered evolution from some less organized state to some more organized state. It allows one to view the final state as being reached from different initial conditions. It allows one to think in terms of movement from homogeneity to heterogeneity. Thus it allows one to think of systems which develop toward states of greater heterogeneity and complexity while, at the same time, one thinks of states which maintain steady conditions moving steadily to the ultimate of that particular state. Since this way of thinking seemed to correspond with my observations and with my thinking

in respect to ethical behavior, it was natural that the model presented should be developed within General Systems Theory.


Having settled on the broad theoretical basis for the model, the need arose for more specific conceptions within which the thinking could be ordered. A concept was needed which expressed that a particular, yet variable, resultant (an ethical system) arises when certain forces meet at a particular moment in time. This concept had to allow, also, for the abnormal over and underdevelopment of the particular resultant (a particular ethical system). The concept needed seemed to be much like that of epigenesis, a concept in the field of embryology. The interpretation of epigenesis that all which grows has an ordered ground plan, not always achieving its final form, yet if achieving this final form, still infinitely variable, fitted well three specific conceptual needs.


1.  The need to represent ethical behavior as a growth phenomenon.


2.  The need to represent organized intermediate stages on the way to later stages.


3.  The need to represent conceptually the idea that stage might fail adequately to
     develop or might display a  monstrous over-development. 



<<back  8  next>>

Copyright 2001 NVC Consulting