File:Behavioral Foundations for the Master Ethical Virtuous Hierarchy.jpg

English: A planetary system of ethics is a goal that has long been anticipated on the world scene today. Although organized religion has long been celebrated as the standard bearer for the promotion of a virtuous life style, the various conflicts afflicting many of the major world religions clearly expose the inherent weakness to such a simplistic interpretation. Ideally, a scientific foundation for such a global moral perspective should prove exceedingly beneficial. A formal behavioral tie-in with ethical principles proves particularly effective for removing cultural stumbling blocks. In particular, a foundation within behavioral psychology proves to be particularly effective: invoking instinctual principles shared in common as a human species (as well as the rest of the animal kingdom) as general unifying themes. When expanded to include the more abstract human-cultural levels; namely, group and universal authority, the affiliated traditional groupings of virtues/values rightfully enters the picture.

    The key to an understanding of the dynamics of the virtuous hierarchy arises as a direct outcome of the fledgling science of Communication Theory, borrowing the crucial concept of the meta-perspective. It is defined as a higher-order perspective on the viewpoint held by another: schematically defined as “this is how I see you-seeing me.” The higher-order groupings of virtues/values are ordered as subsets within such a hierarchy of meta-perspectives, each more abstract grouping building upon that which it supersedes. Take, for example, the cardinal virtues described by Plato (prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude), the theological virtues (faith-hope-charity-decency), and the classical Greek values (beauty-truth-goodness-wisdom). Each of these traditional groupings is further subdivided into four subordinate terms permitting precise point-for-point stacking within the hierarchy of meta-perspectives. Additional listings of ethical terms are further added into the mix: namely, the personal ideals (glory-honor-dignity-integrity), the civil liberties (providence-liberty-civility-austerity), the humanistic values (peace-love-tranquility-equality), the mystical values (ecstasy-bliss-joy-harmony), etc. When taken in concert, the complete ten-level hierarchy of virtuous terms depicted in the diagram emerges in full detail. I have just recently composed this master diagram, a modification of research contained within my Doctoral Thesis.
  This cohesive hierarchy of virtues, values, and ideals proves exceedingly comprehensive in scope, accounting for virtually every major theme celebrated within the Western ethical tradition. It is particularly easy to gain a sense of the increasing degree of abstraction when scanning the individual columns from top to bottom. The traditional sequences of themes line up seamlessly within this hierarchy of meta-perspectives. Indeed, it proves exceedingly unlikely that this cohesive style of system could have arisen solely by chance. This ethical hierarchy mirrors the specialization of personal, group, universal, humanitarian, and transcendental realms within human society as a whole: that (when further specialized into authority/follower roles) accounts for the full ten-level span of ethical terms. 
    This grand-scale unification of ethical principles necessarily argues for a radical reinterpretation of the organizational principles currently under consideration. The key salient insight resides in viewing the individual as the rightful product of a diverse range of social and institutional influences. In addition to the most basic one-to-one style of personal interactions, the individual is further incorporated into a broad range of group contexts (namely, work, family, country, etc.), as well as an all-encompassing universal context. These distinctive contexts collectively summate into a unified authority hierarchy consistent with the theoretical principles governing Set Theory: the unit set, the group set, and the universal set equating with the personal, group, and spiritual levels, respectively.
   The remaining upper-most set of levels, in turn, introduce two hitherto unmentioned categories; namely, the humanitarian and transcendental realms, respectively. This additional set of authority levels is classified as uniquely abstract styles of motivational perspectives, clearly surpassing the more basic organizational pattern previously established for the initial three levels. Humanitarian authority transcends the spiritual variety by claiming to speak for all generations of mankind, not just the current one: experienced as past traditionalism or future potentiality. 
    This extreme sense of the power of abstraction (when considered in its own right) ultimately serves as the basis for one final innovation within the motivational matrix; namely, the crowning transcendental authority level, transcending the routine sense of concreteness shared in common by the lower levels and entering into the realm of pure intuition and imagination.
    This master virtuous realm is further defined in terms of a foundation within the behavioral terminology of instrumental conditioning at the most basic personal authority and personal follower levels: categorized as appetite in anticipation of rewards (positive reinforcement) or aversion in expectation of leniency (negative reinforcement) according to the behavioral theory of B. F. Skinner.  Positive reinforcement reinforces solicitous types of behaviors, whereas negative reinforcement (sometimes confused with punishment) leniently reinforces submissive behaviors through the removal of some external threat within the environment. Accordingly, both positive and negative reinforcement proves similarly reinforcing to the individual, encouraging procurement or appeasement behaviors in an interactive setting. 
    This formal behavioral model further brings into focus the major paradox of the conditioned relationship; namely, as a two-stage sequential process only one role can occur in the present at any given time. In particular, when procurement is actively occurring, reinforcement remains a future potentiality. Similarly, when reinforcement finally comes to pass, procurement is alternately thrust into a potentiality status. As schematically diagrammed in the uppermost two segments of the master diagram, the procurer of reinforcement (solicitousness or submissiveness) is actively depicted within a present time-frame indicative of a subjective “I” perspective characterizing the initiation of the sequence. The subsequent reinforcement role is projected as a potentiality within the future time-frame as approval or leniency, in essence, a mental projection on the part of the procurer, hence, experienced as an objective style of “you” perspective in relation to “the other.” This future-directed style of mental projection allows the procurer to form a mental map of the entire procurement-then-reinforcement dynamic within the conditioned interaction, whereby supplying the motivational rationale for one’s active means towards the achievement of reinforcement.
    The reinforcer within the condition interaction, in turn, is thrust into his/her own active status when the time for bestowing reinforcement finally comes to pass (as depicted in the lowermost segments of the master diagram. Here the active bestowal of reinforcement in the present (desire or worry), in turn, prompts the anticipation of upcoming procurement behaviors in the future (aspiration or compliance): in essence, providing an effective sense of closure within the entire two-stage operant schematic. 
    Through this systematic interplay of the two sequences, both procurement and reinforcement share an equivalent status within the present, along with their potential displacement into a future-directed time-frame respectively. This cyclic (recursive) periodicity emerges as a key factor underlying this two-stage model allowing motivational interchanges to accumulate in a seamless fashion over real time. It is chiefly through such a systematic style of analysis (isolated through individual stages over real time) that the conditioned relationship is seen to be punctuated from either the procurement or reinforcement perspectives. For instance, the dedicated employee works industriously in order to earn the praise of his boss, or acts submissively in order to avoid being fired. 

Such a formal foundation upon behavioral principles ultimately allows the moral commonalties across all religious traditions (that share these virtues and values) to be emphasized, encouraging a new era in religious cooperation. This planetary system of ethics can also serve a secular constituency, where such moral issues have typically been downplayed due to well-meaning attempts to avoid religious favoritism. This self-same system further serves as a crucial adjunct to the major religions of the world without favoring any one of them, promoting a new era in peaceful religious coexistence in that it does not preclude the existence of a top-down pattern of influence of a supernatural nature as well (e. g. the mystical values). Consequently, this ethical/behavioral innovation potentially amounts to the best of all possible worlds: promoting an ethical revival within the secular world, as well as the potential for an even greater degree of spiritual cooperation and religious tolerance across all of the established religions of the world.