What is most basic in Ethics? - a tentative answer...

[prof]

.


.............................................. Mirror-neurons

.

In this regard, see the book, Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil
by Paul Bloom.

He is a Moral Psychologist at Yale University. The book has a readable section on mirror neurons.

He takes up many topics relevant to Ethics, such as the difference between "compassion" and "empathy."

You may want to order this book for your local library.

[yiostheoy]

Immanuel Kant gave a philosophical version of Jesus' "do unto others" which is similar to Buddhist karma.

It simply says to respect others as you would respect yourself and not use others as an object for your own gratification.

In classic ethics, you should do that which is considered to be the best of all the options.

In professional ethics, you should do that which your peers would accept of you as reflecting positively on the entire profession.

Kant resonates with me the most.

[Dalek Prime]

Immanuel Kant gave a philosophical version of Jesus' "do unto others" which is similar to Buddhist karma.

It simply says to respect others as you would respect yourself and not use others as an object for your own gratification.

In classic ethics, you should do that which is considered to be the best of all the options.

In professional ethics, you should do that which your peers would accept of you as reflecting positively on the entire profession.

Kant resonates with me the most.

Sounds nebulous enough.

[yiostheoy]

Immanuel Kant gave a philosophical version of Jesus' "do unto others" which is similar to Buddhist karma.

It simply says to respect others as you would respect yourself and not use others as an object for your own gratification.

In classic ethics, you should do that which is considered to be the best of all the options.

In professional ethics, you should do that which your peers would accept of you as reflecting positively on the entire profession.

Kant resonates with me the most.

Sounds nebulous enough.

Well, professional ethics is not nebulous at all. The governing body will examine your performance and weigh it against what others who are your peers would have done as well in light of what the regulations say and then they will judge you that way.

Classic ethics reaches its pinnacle with Immanuel Kant. He rephrased Jesus and karma in very philosophically modern terms. It is clearly German idealism.

[Dalek Prime]

Wouldn't be my cuppa, I'm afraid. I'm very particular about my ethics, which most disagree on. Ever read David Benatar, by any chance?

Welcome to the forum, btw.

[sthitapragya]

Save your two cent opinions and respond to what I'm saying.

Is there or is there not harm in existing? Why do you feel okay in exposing others to it? Is gambling another's life ethical?

I do get your point. Subjectively people might decide that the pros of life outweigh the cons and then go on to produce kids. But by creating them, you are exposing them to potential harm. And if "do no harm" is the basis of ethics, then it does seem like bringing children into the world is itself unethical.

So you do raise a very interesting question. However, "do no harm " seems different from "do not create a situation with the potential for harm to someone sometime in the future". There is also the possibility that the child might actually live a dream life full of joy and happiness and die peacefully in his or her old age while sleeping and you might prevent a wonderful life by not creating it. So this needs some thinking.

[Dalek Prime]

Save your two cent opinions and respond to what I'm saying.

Is there or is there not harm in existing? Why do you feel okay in exposing others to it? Is gambling another's life ethical?

I do get your point. Subjectively people might decide that the pros of life outweigh the cons and then go on to produce kids. But by creating them, you are exposing them to potential harm. And if "do no harm" is the basis of ethics, then it does seem like bringing children into the world is itself unethical.

So you do raise a very interesting question. However, "do no harm " seems different from "do not create a situation with the potential for harm to someone sometime in the future". There is also the possibility that the child might actually live a dream life full of joy and happiness and die peacefully in his or her old age while sleeping and you might prevent a wonderful life by not creating it. So this needs some thinking.

Not likely. And there is no child that knows of a wonderful life, anyways. You have to stop thinking of something that would actually miss something. If you didn't know of a party because you were sleeping, would you rue not being there?

[sthitapragya]

Not likely. And there is no child that knows of a wonderful life, anyways. You have to stop thinking of something that would actually miss something. If you didn't know of a party because you were sleeping, would you rue not being there?

Well, I will disagree to the extent that I do believe that life is definitely worth experiencing even if I consider all the risks involved. To experience life and not to have experienced it at all, I feel that the first option sounds better. My personal experience is that life is worth living at least once. I wouldn't do it again. But once, definitely.

[ken]

The most basic moral principle IS do not abuse anything.

Every thing is evolving through creation. Find out what every thing's purpose is then you will know how to use it properly, and thus also know how to not abuse it. 'Abuse', just means mis-use.

For this principle to work we must first find out what is 'our', human being, purpose for being here, which by the way is discovered along with the meaning of life, why are we here, etc., etc. Then we will know how to use people and also KNOW how to not abuse them.

If we then want to follow that most basic of principle, well that is another matter.

This lore overrides any other law.

No other rules are needed if this lore is followed.

[Dalek Prime]

Not likely. And there is no child that knows of a wonderful life, anyways. You have to stop thinking of something that would actually miss something. If you didn't know of a party because you were sleeping, would you rue not being there?

Well, I will disagree to the extent that I do believe that life is definitely worth experiencing even if I consider all the risks involved. To experience life and not to have experienced it at all, I feel that the first option sounds better. My personal experience is that life is worth living at least once. I wouldn't do it again. But once, definitely.

Yes, it is fair that you speak of your existence in a positive light. But to make that decision for someone else is wrong. You're here now, and there's no turning the clock back, so you may as well enjoy it the best you can. But that's a completely different scenario from starting a new life not yet begun. Antinatalism is really about the beginning, not after the fact.

[sthitapragya]

Yes, it is fair that you speak of your existence in a positive light. But to make that decision for someone else is wrong. You're here now, and there's no turning the clock back, so you may as well enjoy it the best you can. But that's a completely different scenario from starting a new life not yet begun. Antinatalism is really about the beginning, not after the fact.

Isn't that a subjective decision? From your standpoint, I am wrong, but from mine you are wrong. I do believe life is worth experiencing once.

How can I make a decision for someone else if that someone else does not even exist to make a decision? Producing a child is not making a decision for the child. Producing a child is producing a person capable of making a decision. It is simply a choice made for the self.

[Dalek Prime]

Yes, it is fair that you speak of your existence in a positive light. But to make that decision for someone else is wrong. You're here now, and there's no turning the clock back, so you may as well enjoy it the best you can. But that's a completely different scenario from starting a new life not yet begun. Antinatalism is really about the beginning, not after the fact.

Isn't that a subjective decision? From your standpoint, I am wrong, but from mine you are wrong. I do believe life is worth experiencing once.

How can I make a decision for someone else if that someone else does not even exist to make a decision? Producing a child is not making a decision for the child. Producing a child is producing a person capable of making a decision. It is simply a choice made for the self.

No, you have run into the nonidentity problem, which I've explained is not a problem at all. As a society, we always talk about what is best for future generations, and try, but not always act in their best interest, usually preferring to pass the problems in the long run. So, by your standards, we should not concern ourselves with this as well.

And again, will you try to get the point that I am not refering to extants, but to people who do not exist, and thus their expectations are nil. As an extant, of course you'd think its alright to exist. But a 'nothing' has no opinion, and cares not.

Really, is all this so tough for people to wrap their minds around? I know you're an intelligent person. So, before you reply to me, try a mental experiment, and try to imagine what it is to not exist. What would you're desires or expectations be? Please, just try.

[sthitapragya]

No, you have run into the nonidentity problem, which I've explained is not a problem at all. As a.society, we always talk about what is best for future generations, and try, but not always act in their best interest, usually preferring to pass the problems in the long run. So, by your standards, we should not concern ourselves with this as well.

And again, will you try to get the point that I am not refering to extants, but to people who do not exist, and thus their expectations are nil. As an extant, of course you'd think its alright to exist. But a 'nothing' has no opinion, and cares not.

Really, is all this so tough for people to wrap their minds around?

Yes, it is tough to wrap my mind around it because I haven't given it much thought and you have. So I have questions.

The problem for me here is that I don't see how the decision is for someone else. It is a purely personal decision usually caused by my DNA insisting that I give it a chance to propagate.

the other problem is that while you say I have an opinion and am acting on it, so are you. You are going by your conviction that life is not worth living and therefore future generations should be spared from experiencing it. So as such you too are making a decision for them by not producing them. Do you see the problem?

[sthitapragya]

No, you have run into the nonidentity problem, which I've explained is not a problem at all. As a.society, we always talk about what is best for future generations, and try, but not always act in their best interest, usually preferring to pass the problems in the long run. So, by your standards, we should not concern ourselves with this as well.

And again, will you try to get the point that I am not refering to extants, but to people who do not exist, and thus their expectations are nil. As an extant, of course you'd think its alright to exist. But a 'nothing' has no opinion, and cares not.

Really, is all this so tough for people to wrap their minds around?

Yes, it is tough to wrap my mind around it because I haven't given it much thought and you have. So I have questions.

The problem for me here is that I don't see how the decision is for someone else. It is a purely personal decision usually caused by my DNA insisting that I give it a chance to propagate.

the other problem is that while you say I have an opinion and am acting on it, so are you. You are going by your conviction that life is not worth living and therefore future generations should be spared from experiencing it. So as such you too are making a decision for them by not producing them. Do you see the problem?

Okay, don't answer that. As I read more about this stuff, I can see what you mean.

[Dalek Prime]

No, you have run into the nonidentity problem, which I've explained is not a problem at all. As a.society, we always talk about what is best for future generations, and try, but not always act in their best interest, usually preferring to pass the problems in the long run. So, by your standards, we should not concern ourselves with this as well.

And again, will you try to get the point that I am not refering to extants, but to people who do not exist, and thus their expectations are nil. As an extant, of course you'd think its alright to exist. But a 'nothing' has no opinion, and cares not.

Really, is all this so tough for people to wrap their minds around?

Yes, it is tough to wrap my mind around it because I haven't given it much thought and you have. So I have questions.

The problem for me here is that I don't see how the decision is for someone else. It is a purely personal decision usually caused by my DNA insisting that I give it a chance to propagate.

the other problem is that while you say I have an opinion and am acting on it, so are you. You are going by your conviction that life is not worth living and therefore future generations should be spared from experiencing it. So as such you too are making a decision for them by not producing them. Do you see the problem?

I have no problems with answering your questions, sthitapragya. I'm happy to have someone ask them, instead of dismissal based on not understanding.

To answer your first, you and I are in a unique position in time, where we.have many opportunities to use any number of forms of contraception. This was not possible in the past, so we can't fault them. And we can't just blame our genes and sex drive for our inability not to do so. If a human can't get past it's drives to put a condom on, what hope do they have to advance, anyway?

And no, when I decided to have a vasectomy, no one was impacted. Only the potential was limited, but absolutely no one was effected. There is no one waiting to be born, or missing out on it. Again, you are projecting the loss of your own existence, onto something (nothing) that knows nothing of it, and doesn't care about it.