Why hasn't Ethics made more progress in today's world?

[Immanuel Can]

most people know what they know and nothing is going to change that.

Then those people are not philosophers. They're just indoctrinated or foolish, whether they're Theists, Agnostics or Atheists.

OK then, I'll go along with different groundings make for different interpretations.

Now you've got it! Quite right. They do. And if the grounding is faulty, then the rational extrapolations from that grounding make for flawed or bad ethics. If the grounding's good, then rational extrapolations lead to good ethics.

Now we're on the same page.

[prof]

...Never said 'society is to - or does - wield a big stick' so Henry has a quirk when it comes to understanding me. Ethics cannot be imposed by any kind of violence or threats, or coercion. It has to be eminently reasonable.

And Christianity - whether Jews for Christ or Evangelistic Christians (whichever Immanuel is) - has not done such a good job in giving us an ethical world. Chrosstianity has had 1300 years to do it, and look what a mess we see around us on this planet. The grounding of ethics in religion, or in the ideology of Divine Command, is faulty. It does not, and has not, worked.

Therefore we need a secular Ethics, based on science, the source of reliable, workable knowledge. We need to establish Ethical facts. We need replication of experiences and verifiability. We need to be able to rule out superstition.

Personally I take a highly-spiritual approach to life. I love the personal relationship I have with The Force, or whatever one wants to call it. To me it is the meaning of the universe. Just as a life can have a meaning, so can the entire universe (or set of multiverses.) As an expression of Universe, or Supreme Intelligence, or the Creator of all creativity, I enjoy a happy, healthy and prosperous life, and I am grateful. I am very thankful for my blessings! But this is not about me!

Let us construct better ethical theories for which the only 'authority' is reason and workability for the enhancement of the lives of sentient beings. The theory will have coherence, correspondence with empirical facts, and existential compatibility and resonance; it will be elegant. In other words, we will like it for its truth and its beauty.

[Ginkgo]

most people know what they know and nothing is going to change that.

Then those people are not philosophers. They're just indoctrinated or foolish, whether they're Theists, Agnostics or Atheists.

OK then, I'll go along with different groundings make for different interpretations.

Now you've got it! Quite right. They do. And if the grounding is faulty, then the rational extrapolations from that grounding make for flawed or bad ethics. If the grounding's good, then rational extrapolations lead to good ethics.

Now we're on the same page.

As I mentioned in a previous post we are on the same page- still on that page. In fact, we have been one the same page since day one, or whenever you first made a post in this place, x number of months ago. I have show that your "grounding theology" is inadequate. Yet, you still come back and post the same inadequacies. In exactly the same way I respond with the same inadequacies. Welcome to the, "YOU KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW WHAT I KNOW AND NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE THAT CLUB".

"...too shaky for me". " I don't believe they have got the moral grounding right". Hume was correct, reason is really a slave of the passions. IC, reason alone doesn't give you or anyone else moral motivation.

[Immanuel Can]

Yet, you still come back and post the same inadequacies.

Then do us all a favour, and show me what about the beliefs I've expressed is incorrect.

[henry quirk]

"Never said 'society is to - or does - wield a big stick' "

Never said you did.

I was clear: 'Prof might say 'society' is the stick wielder."

*shrug*

#

"Ethics cannot be imposed by any kind of violence or threats, or coercion. It has to be eminently reasonable."

Your ethical science will have to be imposed by way of the big stick (or power, or might, etc.).

Thinking it will be adopted by all voluntarily -- because it's reasonable, because it's 'right' -- is naive.

For example: I have a philosophical framework...it works (for me)...not interested in yours...not adopting yours...what are you gonna do about it? Since I will not listen, will not move voluntarily, you (and folks like you) will have to force the issue. One way or another: you'll use force.

The big stick takes many forms: ...the brute power of the physically superior man, the seductive allure of the temptress, the whisper of a compelling message into a significant ear, the vigorous application of reason, the subtle application of charisma, the overt application of the 'stick', the 'gun', the 'bomb' and on and on.

Another way to look at it: 'might' (or, the big stick) is the capacity to 'convince' the other guy ('the other guy', as descriptor, includes the natural 'world') of the 'correctness' of your position, or of 'you'.

'Convince' -- as I use it here -- can be the application of the reasoned argument, or, the 'convincing' slam in the head with a length of pipe, or, the use of a technology to alter a circumstance (building a dam, for example), and on and on.

So: even 'reason' (or, reasoning) is a form of the big stick (is coercive, violent, threatening).

As I say above: I won't adopt (or adapt to) your scheme. If it means enough to you, you will use force to (attempt to) get me in line. If you won't, your scientific ethics is moot, an academic exercise.

[Immanuel Can]

Let us construct better ethical theories for which the only 'authority' is reason and workability for the enhancement of the lives of sentient beings. The theory will have coherence, correspondence with empirical facts, and existential compatibility and resonance; it will be elegant. In other words, we will like it for its truth and its beauty.

Very pretty. Unfortunately, only pretty in the way an empty urn is pretty.

If I have you right, then you suppose "reason" will give you authority, and "workability" will give you the application? Or is it "enhancement"? Or is it "coherence," "empirical facts," "resonance," "elegance," "truth" or "beauty"? So many words, so little substance.

But whatever of these properties you list is the controlling idea, then please help us to understand by what authority you have decided you can force us to follow your reasons rather than our own, or instead of our own affections and passions: and explain for what your idea is "workable": what sort of world are you enjoining us to make, to the exclusion of other types we may prefer, and how do we know we have any duty to do what is "workable" for your utopia as opposed to pursuing our own conceptions of it?

In other words, to parrot Henry, "Sez who?"

[henry quirk]

"to parrot Henry"

HA!

Your check is in the mail...

[Immanuel Can]

And Christianity - whether Jews for Christ or Evangelistic Christians (whichever Immanuel is) - has not done such a good job in giving us an ethical world.

Well, as you know, Christianity does not control the world. It never has. Catholicism, arguably controlled some of the world for some of history. But Christianity describes the world exactly as we find it, ethically speaking -- badly messed up by dint of the fact that mankind chooses not to know God.

Chrosstianity has had 1300 years to do it, and look what a mess we see around us on this planet.

Oh, brilliant. Christianity is now responsible for what the world has done by rejecting Christianity? Lovely. Do you also blame Jews for poisoning your wells?

The grounding of ethics in religion, or in the ideology of Divine Command, is faulty. It does not, and has not, worked.

As G. K. Chesterton once so superbly put it, "The problem is not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, but rather that it has been found hard, and not tried." This world is messed up to precisely the degree that it has failed to take the Son of God seriously. For that, He cannot and will not be blamed. It is we who will bear responsibility for what we did or did not do with what we most certainly should have known.

[henry quirk]

"what sort of world are you enjoining us to make"

In another thread, I believe Prof said sumthin' about folks giving back to society a 'fair share'.

I don't cotton to that.

I'm all for paying for what I use, for what I contract for.

Not the least inclined to give other people a share of what's mine simply cuz someone says it's the 'fair' thing to do.

So: I'd guess Prof advocates for communitarianism (wherein 'we' trumps 'I').

But, I could be wrong.

[Arising_uk]

...
The Adversary, unimpressed with Jehovah's handiwork, told God 'up yours' and got his keister tossed out of Paradise. Popular opinion has it that the Adversary was most a'grieved of losing his daily God fix, but I think, instead, he was glad to be rid of the Prying Eye.
...

Peter Cook has it.
http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/2781 ... Pride.html
Bear with the 30 second ad, it's worth it if you are a youth who has only seen the sad remake and not the original, and a treat for the old fogeys who have forgotten.

[prof]

I'll tell you why [Ethics hasn't made progress.] Soon as I get a bite to eat, and then take a nap, that is. That is, if I still remember after I wake up, or play some games. And then if I'm not too busy, I might talk about ethics with you.

Greetings, O wise and great Trixie

I love your sense of humor!! There is much truth in what you write. And you have a valuable skill in your ability to design, produce, and post a video on YouTube. You did a marvelous job in getting your message across I agree with many, if not most, of your ideas.

Would you be willing to create and post a video for the Unified Theory of Ethics - the new paradigm for ethical theory; would you form its concepts into a colorful video that may go viral, and thus make the world a better place?

Awaiting your response...

Yours for Ethics,
Prof

[Arising_uk]

Your syllogism looks like this:

Ethics and morals vary.
Therefore, there can be no authority to decide which are right.

No, it look like this,

Ethics and morals vary.
Therefore, there can be no absolute authority to decide which are right.

If we supply the missing premise, it's got to be something like this:


Ethics and morals vary.
If something varies, then there must be no right answer.
Therefore, there can be no authority to decide which are right.

Or more like this,
Ethics and morals vary.
If something varies, then there must be no absolutely right answer.
Therefore, there can be no absolute authority to decide which are right.

I think you can easily see now that your suppressed premise is unnecessary to believe, if not fully irrational.

Good job I didn't hold it then.

The fact that people disagree about an issue says nothing about whether or not an authoritative answer can exist. There have been many views of the shape of the world. Many people said it's flat. Others said it was a plateau. Others said it was on the curved back of a turtle. And others said it was a sphere.

It's a fair point so I await your absolutely authoritative answer to the fact that ethics have and do vary over time and cultures?

So according to your syllogism, the Earth can have no particular shape? That would follow, but would be bizarre. You would not be willing to accept so preposterous a conclusion, would you?

Depends if you are talking about physical facts or not as I don't consider ethics and morals to lie in the world of empirical solutions, although I understand the irony in me pointing out the facts.

I also think the Earth, whilst being sphere is also pretty flat from where I look.

So why do we treat the question of the existence of an authority for ethics in a way we would treat no other question?

Point me to this authority in the way you can point me to showing the shape of the world then?

Yet this is highly problematic, as you'll soon see.

Someone has to define "reasonable" and "pragmatically acceptable."

Now, you and I might have an accidental agreement about what those terms mean; but it would be likely to happen only because we come from a similar cultural situation and perhaps some similarity of disposition, etc. So if you and I were allowed to define those terms, perhaps the results would be what you and I would both happily call "good."

But what if we aren't the authority that decides what's "reasonable"? What if the "pragmatics" are defined by someone who believes something different from what we do? What if they want to define "reasonable" as "minimizing the number of infidels," and "pragmatic" as meaning "practical for achieving maximal efficiency in executing people?" Or what if "reasonable" means, minimizing dissent, and "pragmatic" means "useful for creating obedient drones?"

Then one discovers how ethical or moral one is, i.e. one discovers what one is willing to accept or not accept and what one is willing to do about the situation.

Then the words "reasonable" and "pragmatic" do not provide us with moral high ground, or with any semantic content to empower resistance. In fact, they capitulate entirely to totalitarian uses, just as easily as they yielded themselves up to the uses defined by you and me.

Moral high grounds have long been the place where the totalitarians live.

They provide one with the grounds upon which one decides if they can live with what is being proposed.

That's why "authority" is not an ethical issue that is just going to go away. We might wish it would, or would solve itself; but it will not. And inattention to it is very dangerous to freedom.

For sure one has to stand up for one's ethical and moral beliefs but I think what is more dangerous to freedom is the idea of an absolute ethical authority. I prefer the mish-mash that deals with the cases as they occur and that uses all the approaches to come to an equitable solution that most can live with.

Oh, I agree. Grand ethical theorizing will get us all killed. But so will "pragmatics" if we don't have any way of defining it. What we need is some source-of-reliable-information (an "authority," if we can use that word in a non-pejorative, neutral way) to establish the territory for us.

Why? Surely it's best if we decide the territory for ourselves and act if we can't live with the decision and accept the consequences either way.

And yes, capitulation to the WRONG authority even more of a disaster than having no authority.

But we do have authorities upon such matters, its just that they have to judge in a way that most would find acceptable or at least reasonably understandable enough to allow at least grudging acceptance of the decision.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm going to analyze the syllogism you offered as your own version of what I understood from your argument.

Ethics and morals vary.

Let's accept this. That the ethics and morals believed in among different people groups do vary substantially, I think we can both accept as rational. Whether morality itself varies accordingly remains the important point of contention. But understanding this phrase in the first sense, I think we're both accepting it.

If something varies, then there must be no absolutely right answer.

This doesn't change the problem. It's also a non-sequitur, so the problem remains. It does not follow that because people disagree about something there is no absolutely right answer. There may well be. It merely remains to be shown.

A secondary problem may appear for us in the word "right". It can mean morally right, or it can mean only factually right, or it can even be used as a synonym for practically useful for some purpose. And I think this gets to that old question of ethics, "Are there any objective moral facts?" As a Theist, I say yes. As something else, a person might say no.

But if there are no moral facts, then how do we parse a sentence like, "Stealing your neighbour's wife is wrong." Do we merely mean, "Stealing your neighbour's wife is factually impossible?" Surely not. How about "Stealing your neighbour's wife will not work?" Surely not that either. So what do we mean, if there are no moral facts about the appropriating of someone else's wife?

Therefore, there can be no absolute authority to decide which are right.

I can see no way that rationally this follows at all.

That people believe in different authorities, or in none, does not tell us if one is right or not. An authority can be unacknowledged. If my neighbor refuses to recognize the police as an authority, that does not imply they go away. It also does not exempt him from the demands they place on him to obey the law, and it does not get him out of jail if he says, "I don't believe in any of this." If moral authority exists, then someone who disobeys it just runs afoul of that authority. His dissent doesn't make it go away.

Moral high grounds have long been the place where the totalitarians live.

Maybe sometimes. But the high ground is also the place where your right not to be dominated by them is encoded. No moral high-ground? Then you would have no right to freedom of speech or even thought. I think neither of us believes that.

For sure one has to stand up for one's ethical and moral beliefs

How do we know we even have such things? For I thought you said that these were merely provisional and personal, not universal or authoritative? No moral high-ground, remember? So nothing is "moral" or "ethical"; it is merely "convenient" or "preferred by me." How much anyone owes to my convenience or preferences you yourself can judge.

I think we're stumbling over the word "authority," perhaps. You may have the idea that I mean a human authority, or just as bad, a human being who claims to speak for God. I do not. I mean only God Himself would be capable as a moral Authority. No one else could claim that moral high ground, except to the extent their ethics corresponded to whatever God specified. And that would have to be left to the individual conscience and judgment before his Creator, just as Locke said.

[mickthinks]

The goal is to gain more insight, to accumulate valuable knowledge, to define ethical terms with more exactitude, to relate these terms to each other ...

Hmmm, that looks like the description of processes, that is, paths, rather than goals, but I accept that the distinction may not be so important in this discussion. But I do want to press you to say how you quantify moral "insight", "knowledge", "exactitude", and "relation to each other".

A morally-sensitive person displays ethical conduct.
But, in the absence of progress in the science of Ethics, what could distinguish ethical conduct from unethical conduct?

[Arising_uk]

If something varies, then there must be no absolutely right answer.

This doesn't change the problem. It's also a non-sequitur, so the problem remains. It does not follow that because people disagree about something there is no absolutely right answer. There may well be. It merely remains to be shown.

Given the history of ethics and morals in philosophy I think the answer is that there is no absolutely right answer, just relatively right answers. Of course I await your proof.

A secondary problem may appear for us in the word "right". It can mean morally right, or it can mean only factually right, or it can even be used as a synonym for practically useful for some purpose. And I think this gets to that old question of ethics, "Are there any objective moral facts?" As a Theist, I say yes. As something else, a person might say no.

Why would being a theist create objective moral facts. Still, tell me one?

But if there are no moral facts, then how do we parse a sentence like, "Stealing your neighbour's wife is wrong." Do we merely mean, "Stealing your neighbour's wife is factually impossible?" Surely not. How about "Stealing your neighbour's wife will not work?" Surely not that either. So what do we mean, if there are no moral facts about the appropriating of someone else's wife?

We mean, in this society the general consensus is that if you steal my wife it will be met with disapproval and possibly be against the law.

I can see no way that rationally this follows at all.

Fair enough, point me towards this absolute authority?

That people believe in different authorities, or in none, does not tell us if one is right or not. An authority can be unacknowledged. If my neighbor refuses to recognize the police as an authority, that does not imply they go away. It also does not exempt him from the demands they place on him to obey the law, and it does not get him out of jail if he says, "I don't believe in any of this." If moral authority exists, then someone who disobeys it just runs afoul of that authority. His dissent doesn't make it go away.

Depends if he can get enough people to dissent with him, if he can't then he'll have to move to somewhere where they agree or lump it if he wishes to live fairly unimpeded in society.

Maybe sometimes. ...

Pretty much every time.

But the high ground is also the place where your right not to be dominated by them is encoded. No moral high-ground? Then you would have no right to freedom of speech or even thought. I think neither of us believes that.

I pretty much believe that one has no rights per se, other than what one demands and stands up for.

How do we know we even have such things?

This is why I gave up Ethics and Morals as a study as my take is no-one doesn't have such things, if one is born into a society then by default one gets ethics and morals. Life is the process which shows one which ones one actually holds.

For I thought you said that these were merely provisional and personal, not universal or authoritative? No moral high-ground, remember? So nothing is "moral" or "ethical"; it is merely "convenient" or "preferred by me." How much anyone owes to my convenience or preferences you yourself can judge.

Not for me to judge but for you to decide what you are going to live and die by?

I think we're stumbling over the word "authority," perhaps. You may have the idea that I mean a human authority, or just as bad, a human being who claims to speak for God. I do not. I mean only God Himself would be capable as a moral Authority. No one else could claim that moral high ground, except to the extent their ethics corresponded to whatever God specified. And that would have to be left to the individual conscience and judgment before his Creator, just as Locke said.

Which 'God' are you talking about? Which book has these specifications? If its left to the individual then I think this individual back in my boat of picking and choosing what he'll live by.