The Second Question of Ethics

[RCSaunders]

Is that a straight enough answer?

Yes! Thank you very much.

So...that doesn't make sense to me. Why would we think that the "second question of ethics" (to paraphrase) was something like, "What do people use ethics for?"

After all, we've skipped the whole question of whether or not there is any actual legitimacy in them, or in using them for anything.

I'm afraid you have me confused. I asked:

[Do] your ethical principles have an objective, and if they do, what is it?

and you answered:

To teach mankind particular things about God.

Isn't that a, "legitimate," answer?

Remember, first question was if human beings consciously choose their behavior or not. The second question is what the objective of ethical principles is. If human beings must consciously choose there behavior, don't they need principles to guide their choices? Now we know what the objective of the principles of chemistry, of physics, of electronics, of medicine are, and why we need those principles to make right choices in those fields.

So I could restate my question, "what field are ethical principles needed for." Until that question is answered I do not see how the legitimacy of any particular ethical views can even be considered.

[Impenitent]

crowd control...

-Imp

That would make the objective of ethical principles a social thing, then, wouldn't it?

Would, "the objective of ethical principles is to make society nice," mean the same thing?

if one makes the assumption that the others which appear to be similar to us and have the same amount of freedom of action that we believe we have, then yes, it is as social as anything ...

as far as making society nice, as long as society is nice to me then that's fine...

but I have no illusion that an ethical principle imposed on others, or even adopted and followed by others, guarantees their actions towards me...

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

...you answered:

To teach mankind particular things about God.

Isn't that a, "legitimate," answer?

Yes, it is. But my question is not about "legitimate answers," but about whether anybody who is not a believer in the Supreme Being is capable of showing that ethics themselves are legitimate. That's the question I was pointing to.

Remember, first question was if human beings consciously choose their behavior or not.

Right. And I see good reasons for starting with that. It's not the only possible first question, but it's a really good one.

The second question is what the objective of ethical principles is.

Not really. It seems to me that you've skipped whether "ethics" is a real thing, or merely a delusion people choose to believe in sometimes. Because if ethics themselves are not legitimate, then what people use them for is at best immaterial, and at worst, rather sinister. They could be nothing but what Nietzsche said they were: strategies for some people to dominate others.

If human beings must consciously choose there behavior, don't they need principles to guide their choices?

Indeed they do. But we have not established that any ethical principles are even possible. So regardless of their felt need for some, if that's what they experience, we have not established they have a legitimate desire or right to any. Maybe, as the End-Of-Ethics school holds, there are no actually legitimate moral principles possible. So we have to deal with that first, it seems to me.

See Margolis, Life Without Principles, for example.

So I could restate my question, "what field are ethical principles needed for."

Before that, we need to answer whether there even ARE any legitimate ethical priniciples. Our personal uses for them are surely secondary. And if there are none, then no "use" we make of them is legitimate.

[RCSaunders]

crowd control...

-Imp

That would make the objective of ethical principles a social thing, then, wouldn't it?

Would, "the objective of ethical principles is to make society nice," mean the same thing?

if one makes the assumption that the others which appear to be similar to us and have the same amount of freedom of action that we believe we have, then yes, it is as social as anything ...

as far as making society nice, as long as society is nice to me then that's fine...

but I have no illusion that an ethical principle imposed on others, or even adopted and followed by others, guarantees their actions towards me...

-Imp

Thanks Imp. That is probably the most common view of ethics, though it comes in a great many variations.

[RCSaunders]

The second question is what the objective of ethical principles is.

Not really. It seems to me that you've skipped whether "ethics" is a real thing, or merely a delusion people choose to believe in sometimes.

If there are such things as ethical principles, I want to know what they pertain to. If they pertain to nothing they are useless. If there is no reason for them it doesn't matter what they are, why people have them, whether they are real or not, or if they are legitimate.

So I could restate my question, "what field are ethical principles needed for."

Before that, we need to answer whether there even ARE any legitimate ethical priniciples. Our personal uses for them are surely secondary. And if there are none, then no "use" we make of them is legitimate.

My point is, IC, if some principles are assumed to be needed, but what they are needed for cannot be identified, they are not needed at all. I see no point in trying to establish if there even are principles for which there is no objective or purpose.

You want to say what the principles are, first, and from that deduce what they are for, and I think that is the whole problem of what is called ethics.

We're not going to agree on that, which for this thread does not matter. Your real answer to my question of, "what the objective of ethical principles is," seems to be that the objective can only be deduced from the principles of ethics which must be identified first. If that's your view, then it is. (If it's not, please correct me.)

It's not the kind of answer I was hoping for, or expecting, but I certainly can't object to it if it's what you believe.

[Immanuel Can]

If there are such things as ethical principles, I want to know what they pertain to.

The red part has to be answered before the green part. That's what I'm suggesting.

If they pertain to nothing they are useless. If there is no reason for them it doesn't matter what they are, why people have them, whether they are real or not, or if they are legitimate.

That's backwards, because it makes human utility the defining mark of the real.

But something fictitious can have human utility, as when belief in fairies keeps people from wandering into the bog at night. That doesn't make fairies real, of course; it just means that it's useful to keeping your villagers alive that they believe in such non-existent things.

You want to say what the principles are, first,

Yes.

... and from that deduce what they are for,

No, that's not my view.

One cannot make any easy deductions from the principles, assuming they exist, to any human utility they may happen have. Sometimes the utility may be more obvious, and sometimes not at all. Human deductions from the principles are often contestable and contested.

For example, IF we already knew that adultery was wrong, it would not be easy to deduce why. Maybe it's because some ancient man wanted to keep exclusive control of "his" woman. Or maybe it would be because children do better with two of their own parents. But it's counterintuitive to the goals of sexual gratification, and counterintuitive to the reproductive instinct. Chimps, who are said to be our closest species, are totally promiscuous...the females mate with any other chimp, and it serves their species as well as the alternative.

So which deduction can we make? And why? Human utility seems to argue for both sides.

But I would argue that human utility, when it appears in ethics, is a secondary feature, not the reason for ethics. Certain ethics are probably good for us, and none will be genuinely bad for us; but many are hard and demanding, and if their durability depends on all involved human beings being motivated personally to follow them, then we shall end up with no ethics at all. For there are always times when a person who doesn't usually want to, say, commit adultery, suddenly finds he very much does want to.

[henry quirk]

Please, gimme the idiot-level version of...

What is the objective of ethical principles?

...so that I may vomit my wisdom upon your thread.

[RCSaunders]

If there are such things as ethical principles, I want to know what they pertain to.

The red part has to be answered before the green part. That's what I'm suggesting.

Yes, I got that. I'll accept that as your answer. The rest I'll address separately.

[RCSaunders]

If there are such things as ethical principles, I want to know what they pertain to.

The red part has to be answered before the green part. That's what I'm suggesting.

If they pertain to nothing they are useless. If there is no reason for them it doesn't matter what they are, why people have them, whether they are real or not, or if they are legitimate.

That's backwards, because it makes human utility the defining mark of the real.

Human utility has nothing to do with the question. It's whether anything at all is at stake that depends on the observation of ethical principles.

You want to say what the principles are, first,

Yes.

... and from that deduce what they are for,

No, that's not my view.

One cannot make any easy deductions from the principles, assuming they exist, to any human utility they may happen have. Sometimes the utility may be more obvious, and sometimes not at all. Human deductions from the principles are often contestable and contested.

Then how do you intend to know what the objective of the principles are if you say what the principles are first. I agree you cannot do it, but you're the one who wants to say what the principles are first before identifying any reason or purpose for them.

To discover the purpose of electronics study the principles of electronics first. To discover the purpose of medicine study the principles of medicine first. Do you see why I think that is backwards.

For example, IF we already knew that adultery was wrong, it would not be easy to deduce why.

Exactly. Without knowing what is at stake it is impossible to identify any relationship between behavior and any value, good, bad, right, or wrong. It has to be, good, bad, right, or wrong for something. That, "something," is the objective, purpose, or field to which ethical principles pertain.

[RCSaunders]

Please, gimme the idiot-level version of...

What is the objective of ethical principles?

...so that I may vomit my wisdom upon your thread.

If you are asking me to give you my answer to the question, I cannot on this thread. I'm trying to discover what others think the objective of ethical principles are.

So far, the objectives suggested are one's own life, a good society, and revealing God to mankind (in very brief form). Do you have a view of what the objective of ethical principles are? (I think you do.)

Sorry, Henry!

[henry quirk]

Please, gimme the idiot-level version of...

What is the objective of ethical principles?

...so that I may vomit my wisdom upon your thread.

If you are asking me to give you my answer to the question, I cannot on this thread. I'm trying to discover what others think the objective of ethical principles are.

So far, the objectives suggested are one's own life, a good society, and revealing God to mankind (in very brief form). Do you have a view of what the objective of ethical principles are? (I think you do.)

Sorry, Henry!

I want you to dumb the question down like you did for VA in the other thread.

[Age]

Since there has been no disagreement that the first question of ethics is: "Do individuals consciously choose their behavior?," and apparently no disagreement that they do, the second question can be addressed:

What is the objective of ethical principles?

What is 'your' objective of ethical principles?

Is this the same for EVERY one?

If not, then 'the' objective of ethical principles is what EVERY one agrees with and accepts.

What I think you will find is 'the' objective of ethical principles, which EVERY one could agree with and accepts is 'the' objective that leads to reaching and achieving what 'it' IS that EVERY one Truly wants and desires.

What EVERY one, once, Truly wanted and desired was to live in peace and harmony with EVERY one, or just 'world peace'.

If this is the case, then 'the' objective of ethical principles is to reach peace and harmony with EVERY one, or to just achieve 'world peace'.

If there are actions which are identified as ethically "wrong," or, "bad," what difference does it make if anyone does them?

Then peace and harmony with EVERY one, or 'world peace', will NOT be reached nor achieved.

If there are actions which are identified as ethically, "right," or, "good," what difference does it make if those acts are neglected.

The same as above, that is; Then peace and harmony with EVERY one, or 'world peace', will NOT be reached nor achieved.

If there is no identifiable objective or purpose to conforming or not conforming to ethical principles, what is their point?

But WHY are you ASSUMING that, or asking about if, there is NO identifiable objective or purpose to conforming or not conforming to ethical principles?

To me, it is an obvious fact that there is an identifiable objective and/or purpose to conforming or not conforming to ethical principles.

[Before answering this question, consider any possible answer, and follow it with, "so what?" "So what if the human race becomes extinct, "so what," if some God does not like it, "so what," if some people suffer, "so what," if you don't like it? If these questions sound nihilistic, they are, which is why they so desparately need to be answered.]

How much time do you have to listen FULLY to what 'the' actual answers ARE to these type of questions?

As for, "So what?", in relation to what I said, then if EVERY one once wanted to live in peace and harmony, or world peace, then "So what" happens if ANY one does NOT conform to the ethical principles, then the objective, or purpose, of conforming to ethical principles in order to reach 'world peace' will NOT be achieved.

As for, "So what if the human race becomes extinct?", then this is of no consequence. This is because the very nature of the Universe, Itself, being eternal, another species, at one time, will just evolve/come along and live, and thus create, the way that was Truly wanted and desired by that species.

As for, "So what if God does not like it?", but what kind of God are you proposing would NOT like what is inherently within the species, which has naturally evolved, to be naturally evolved and naturally inherently within them. Also, what God would NOT like what is Truly wanted and desired by ALL, which would obviously be the best for ALL, anyway?

As for, "So what if some people suffer?", but who do you suggest would suffer by ALL being peaceful and harmonious with EVERY one?

As for, "So what if you do not like it?" Who do you propose would NOT like living in peace and harmony with EVERY one?

[RCSaunders]

Since there has been no disagreement that the first question of ethics is: "Do individuals consciously choose their behavior?," and apparently no disagreement that they do, the second question can be addressed:

What is the objective of ethical principles?

What is 'your' objective of ethical principles?

That's what I'm asking.

Is this the same for EVERY one?

I doubt it. So far there have been at least three views expressed.

If not, then 'the' objective of ethical principles is what EVERY one agrees with and accepts.

What I think you will find is 'the' objective of ethical principles, which EVERY one could agree with and accepts is 'the' objective that leads to reaching and achieving what 'it' IS that EVERY one Truly wants and desires.

What EVERY one, once, Truly wanted and desired was to live in peace and harmony with EVERY one, or just 'world peace'.

If this is the case, then 'the' objective of ethical principles is to reach peace and harmony with EVERY one, or to just achieve 'world peace'.

So your answer to the question is, "the objective of ethical principles is to reach peace and harmony with EVERY one, or to just achieve 'world peace.'"

That's clear and succinct. I think it is a very common view.

Thanks for that answer, Age.

If there are actions which are identified as ethically "wrong," or, "bad," what difference does it make if anyone does them?

Then peace and harmony with EVERY one, or 'world peace', will NOT be reached nor achieved.

If there are actions which are identified as ethically, "right," or, "good," what difference does it make if those acts are neglected.

The same as above, that is; Then peace and harmony with EVERY one, or 'world peace', will NOT be reached nor achieved.

If there is no identifiable objective or purpose to conforming or not conforming to ethical principles, what is their point?

But WHY are you ASSUMING that, or asking about if, there is NO identifiable objective or purpose to conforming or not conforming to ethical principles?

To me, it is an obvious fact that there is an identifiable objective and/or purpose to conforming or not conforming to ethical principles.

[Before answering this question, consider any possible answer, and follow it with, "so what?" "So what if the human race becomes extinct, "so what," if some God does not like it, "so what," if some people suffer, "so what," if you don't like it? If these questions sound nihilistic, they are, which is why they so desperately need to be answered.]

How much time do you have to listen FULLY to what 'the' actual answers ARE to these type of questions?

As for, "So what?", in relation to what I said, then if EVERY one once wanted to live in peace and harmony, or world peace, then "So what" happens if ANY one does NOT conform to the ethical principles, then the objective, or purpose, of conforming to ethical principles in order to reach 'world peace' will NOT be achieved.

As for, "So what if the human race becomes extinct?", then this is of no consequence. This is because the very nature of the Universe, Itself, being eternal, another species, at one time, will just evolve/come along and live, and thus create, the way that was Truly wanted and desired by that species.

As for, "So what if God does not like it?", but what kind of God are you proposing would NOT like what is inherently within the species, which has naturally evolved, to be naturally evolved and naturally inherently within them. Also, what God would NOT like what is Truly wanted and desired by ALL, which would obviously be the best for ALL, anyway?

As for, "So what if some people suffer?", but who do you suggest would suffer by ALL being peaceful and harmonious with EVERY one?

As for, "So what if you do not like it?" Who do you propose would NOT like living in peace and harmony with EVERY one?

And thanks for taking the time to answer the questions. It makes your view clear and it's appreciated.

[Age]

Since there has been no disagreement that the first question of ethics is: "Do individuals consciously choose their behavior?," and apparently no disagreement that they do, the second question can be addressed:

What is the objective of ethical principles?

What is 'your' objective of ethical principles?

That's what I'm asking.

I KNOW. I was just asking what is 'your view', as I was curios to know?

I already EXPLAINED my view.

Is this the same for EVERY one?

I doubt it. So far there have been at least three views expressed.

If not, then 'the' objective of ethical principles is what EVERY one agrees with and accepts.

What I think you will find is 'the' objective of ethical principles, which EVERY one could agree with and accepts is 'the' objective that leads to reaching and achieving what 'it' IS that EVERY one Truly wants and desires.

What EVERY one, once, Truly wanted and desired was to live in peace and harmony with EVERY one, or just 'world peace'.

If this is the case, then 'the' objective of ethical principles is to reach peace and harmony with EVERY one, or to just achieve 'world peace'.

So your answer to the question is, "the objective of ethical principles is to reach peace and harmony with EVERY one, or to just achieve 'world peace.'"

That's clear and succinct. I think it is a very common view.

Thanks for that answer, Age.

If there are actions which are identified as ethically "wrong," or, "bad," what difference does it make if anyone does them?

Then peace and harmony with EVERY one, or 'world peace', will NOT be reached nor achieved.

If there are actions which are identified as ethically, "right," or, "good," what difference does it make if those acts are neglected.

The same as above, that is; Then peace and harmony with EVERY one, or 'world peace', will NOT be reached nor achieved.

If there is no identifiable objective or purpose to conforming or not conforming to ethical principles, what is their point?

But WHY are you ASSUMING that, or asking about if, there is NO identifiable objective or purpose to conforming or not conforming to ethical principles?

To me, it is an obvious fact that there is an identifiable objective and/or purpose to conforming or not conforming to ethical principles.

[Before answering this question, consider any possible answer, and follow it with, "so what?" "So what if the human race becomes extinct, "so what," if some God does not like it, "so what," if some people suffer, "so what," if you don't like it? If these questions sound nihilistic, they are, which is why they so desperately need to be answered.]

How much time do you have to listen FULLY to what 'the' actual answers ARE to these type of questions?

As for, "So what?", in relation to what I said, then if EVERY one once wanted to live in peace and harmony, or world peace, then "So what" happens if ANY one does NOT conform to the ethical principles, then the objective, or purpose, of conforming to ethical principles in order to reach 'world peace' will NOT be achieved.

As for, "So what if the human race becomes extinct?", then this is of no consequence. This is because the very nature of the Universe, Itself, being eternal, another species, at one time, will just evolve/come along and live, and thus create, the way that was Truly wanted and desired by that species.

As for, "So what if God does not like it?", but what kind of God are you proposing would NOT like what is inherently within the species, which has naturally evolved, to be naturally evolved and naturally inherently within them. Also, what God would NOT like what is Truly wanted and desired by ALL, which would obviously be the best for ALL, anyway?

As for, "So what if some people suffer?", but who do you suggest would suffer by ALL being peaceful and harmonious with EVERY one?

As for, "So what if you do not like it?" Who do you propose would NOT like living in peace and harmony with EVERY one?

And thanks for taking the time to answer the questions. It makes your view clear and it's appreciated.

[RCSaunders]

Please, gimme the idiot-level version of...

What is the objective of ethical principles?

...so that I may vomit my wisdom upon your thread.

If you are asking me to give you my answer to the question, I cannot on this thread. I'm trying to discover what others think the objective of ethical principles are.

So far, the objectives suggested are one's own life, a good society, and revealing God to mankind (in very brief form). Do you have a view of what the objective of ethical principles are? (I think you do.)

Sorry, Henry!

I want you to dumb the question down like you did for VA in the other thread.

I'm not sure I can make the question simpler, but I'll try.

If you have no particular objective in what you do, it really does not matter what you do. We don't need a guide to accomplish nothing.

If you want to take a trip someplace you can just jump in your car and drive willy-nilly and hope you get to your desired destination. But you know that won't work. You need a guide, a map that tells you, "to get from here to there you have to follow this route." There may be more than one route, but the principle is the same for them all.

But one only needs that principle and that map if they intend to go somewhere. If there is no objective, no place one wishes to get to, they do not need the principles or the map.

The question of ethics is, what is the objective, the destination (metaphorically) one needs ethical principles to guide them to. Maybe there isn't a destination, which is why I asked the question.

Not sure that's simpler. It's the best I can do, Henry.