Philosophy Now Forum

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:26 am The point of ethics is to give people who don't know how to behave something to do to stop them misbehaving.

Or, to give them a point to misbehavingly mock, and for such trolls most any point will suffice, eh?

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 4:42 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:26 am The point of ethics is to give people who don't know how to behave something to do to stop them misbehaving.

Or, to give them a point to misbehavingly mock, and for such trolls most any point will suffice, eh?

I don't imagine anyone weighs in on ethics hoping to be mocked. And if any point will do, ethics serves no function. Your trouble Walker, is that half of what you say is nonsense. You are at least consistent, because so is the other half.

Ethics doesn't arise intentionally, because we have some "point" with it.

It arises because you can't help but feel that some interpersonal behavior is acceptable and some is not.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 2:31 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 2:07 pm Perhaps the question would have been better formulated if I had asked whether you thought there could be a system of ethics that has been derived from any source other than God.

Oh, thank you.

Yes. Neither Deontologies nor Consequentialisms are derived from any belief in God. Neither appeals to God as an explicit starting point. Deontologies claim to correspond to "reason," and Consequentialisms to various forms of "utility" or "outcomes." Pragmatism regards the question as unimportant. Nihilism denies we can even ask the question. Virtue Ethics...that's more debatable, but there are forms which claim not to require that. So there are a variety of Ethics frameworks that, in their theorizing, choose not to presume the existence of God as a starting point.

But I'm guessing you knew that already, so the question must be somewhat different.

So I'm guessing that the "must" means, "if an ethic is actually to be warranted or legitimate." And if that's what you mean, then the answer to your original question is this: if there is no God, there are no such things as objectively-right ethics. There are, perhaps, strategically-useful ethics that have no ultimate "oughtness," but if there is no Absolute Source, then there is no such thing as an ethical claim that is, in itself, absolutely right.

We could say, with the Pragmatists, perhaps, that some ethics are contingently useful, helpful to us for practical purposes we may choose to have, and for as long as we choose to have them. But no more than that, I would suggest. Because any universal or absolute ethic would have to presuppose teleology -- and if there's no Creator, there's no teleology.

Consequentialisms subsitute a contingent teleology for an absolute one. But this means, of course, that all Consequentialisms are merely contingent, local, and temporary. There seems to me no escaping that conclusion. And Deontology becomes arbitrary, as well; for it can no longer explain its fundamental claim that "reason" is the legitimate basis of moral reflection -- even if it could ever show that a pure and neutral "reason" is what it is actually using.

But I am going on too long. I hope I've honoured your question enough.

Yours may be the most helpful response I have received in the forum to date. Thanks.

So what is a good life? For me it is a life of altruism punctuated by the satisfaction that can be derived there of.

Is there an absolute definition of a good life? I think not. There are a variety of people who appear to enjoy their lives. The chance that they all possess the same system of ethics from which they can harvest satisfaction is dim. Gleaning pleasure by making decisions based on the guidance of a system of ethics is what defines a good life for me.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:04 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:59 am

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:26 amThe point of ethics is to give people who don't know how to behave something to do to stop them misbehaving.

...like a distraction?

So I gather:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:54 pm...if I were an Atheist, I would know that no moral constraints remain upon we at all, and would very likely take full advantage of that fact, I think.

I suppose obnoxious is a step up from immoral.

Sorry, I had an 'ethical' duty to finish watching my show.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 5:05 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 4:42 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:26 am The point of ethics is to give people who don't know how to behave something to do to stop them misbehaving.

Or, to give them a point to misbehavingly mock, and for such trolls most any point will suffice, eh?

I don't imagine anyone weighs in on ethics hoping to be mocked. And if any point will do, ethics serves no function. Your trouble Walker, is that half of what you say is nonsense. You are at least consistent, because so is the other half.

There's plenty of cultural trolls mocking ethics, you little twister you. It's done by corrupting institutions.

Take any institution currently being corrupted by the Left, which is most all of them. You've got your so-called Catholic politicians, Pelosi and Biden, who are big abortion advocates, thus corrupting that institution within the limitations of their mortal powers. The institution of marriage? Aahaha. Same sex marriages opened the door to all kinds of shenanigan-petitions for marrying various life forms, corrupting the institution.

Remember when the airlines opened the doors to "service" animals? In a jiffy snakes, at least one pony, and even pigs on planes.

Neither The Onion nor The Sacramento Bee can keep up with the ethical trolls.

And that comes to your trouble, you little twerp.


Catholic Principle:

The point of marriage is for man and woman to join in a blessed sacrament (whether or not it's called that) for procreation.

The point of a marriage license is societal approval of the union, once upon a time given the scientific sanction of preventing sexually transmitted pandemics.

The ostensible purpose of marrying anyone or anything your heart desires is divine union, divine being a loose term these days.

The real purpose? Corruption of the institution.

In formulating words for your outrage, remember the purpose of philosophy is principle, not person. Uh huh.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 8:59 pm So what is a good life? For me it is a life of altruism punctuated by the satisfaction that can be derived there of.

Is there an absolute definition of a good life? I think not. There are a variety of people who appear to enjoy their lives. The chance that they all possess the same system of ethics from which they can harvest satisfaction is dim. Gleaning pleasure by making decisions based on the guidance of a system of ethics is what defines a good life for me.

After the anchor is misplaced and the oars slip overboard the only sure guidance system on either cloudy or fog-bound nights while row, row, rowing your boat gently down the stream is non-proprietary reason tuned to compassion, which is quite alluring to the soul.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 8:20 pm
Yours may be the most helpful response I have received in the forum to date. Thanks.

That's an awesome and well-deserved compliment to a meticulous and thus mindful word-wielder.

Should US institutions be corrupted?

That's the fork in the road, left or right.

Left says yes because the constitution is corrupt.

Right says no because the constitution is divinely inspired by the best of The Age of Enlightenment, its wisdom not limited by time.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 4:16 amThere's plenty of cultural trolls mocking ethics...

No doubt; that doesn't make their trolling the point of ethics.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 4:16 am...you little twister you.

I'm simply untwisting what you have twisted.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 4:16 amIt's done by corrupting institutions.

You can have incorruptible institutions, or you can have freedom. I take it you choose incorruptible institutions over freedom.

san wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:43 pm I think Ethics is to solve Ethics, to solve Ethical Dilemmas.

When a Dilemma is presented, an ethical system solves the dilemma. It is usually determined that the act of solving a dilemma is good. (The specific individual interrogation of the dilemma or of another's solution is the debate of Ethics and thus out of the specific scope of my inquiry. The importance of the intent of Ethics as a whole rather than the many debates within Ethics is to what I'm referring.)

It is Ethical to solve Ethical dilemmas. Does that mean the intent of Ethics is to be Ethical?

That seems a little overcooked. It's a fact of human life that we do reason about ethics, and that's why we give reasons for our choices. It's another fact that this reasoning is deeply suspect, and that's why we have insoluble controversies. The history of philosophy of ethics is mostly the tale of silly men trying to uncover some foundation for all of that reasoning that we inherently involve ourselves in so that those controversies become soluble, and their amazingly poor results; failures rom which nobody learns shit.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 4:49 am...the constitution is divinely inspired by the best of The Age of Enlightenment...

So what are you saying? Were 'the best of The Age of Enlightenment' divine? Or were they inspired by some divinity?

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 4:49 am...its wisdom not limited by time.

Apart from the 27 times it has been amended.

san wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:43 pm I think Ethics is to solve Ethics, to solve Ethical Dilemmas.

When a Dilemma is presented, an ethical system solves the dilemma. It is usually determined that the act of solving a dilemma is good. (The specific individual interrogation of the dilemma or of another's solution is the debate of Ethics and thus out of the specific scope of my inquiry. The importance of the intent of Ethics as a whole rather than the many debates within Ethics is to what I'm referring.)

It is Ethical to solve Ethical dilemmas. Does that mean the intent of Ethics is to be Ethical?

The point of ethics is to strive for good or evil based on your nature to ensure that you survive.

san wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:43 pm I think Ethics is to solve Ethics, to solve Ethical Dilemmas.

When a Dilemma is presented, an ethical system solves the dilemma. It is usually determined that the act of solving a dilemma is good. (The specific individual interrogation of the dilemma or of another's solution is the debate of Ethics and thus out of the specific scope of my inquiry. The importance of the intent of Ethics as a whole rather than the many debates within Ethics is to what I'm referring.)

It is Ethical to solve Ethical dilemmas. Does that mean the intent of Ethics is to be Ethical?

Your above is going in circles so it is a non-starter.

Kant asserted that humanity is represented by three critical main activities, i.e.
1. What can I know? [epistemology]
2. What can I do? [Morality and Ethics]
3. What can I hope for? i.e. results of 1 and 2 above.

To be an effective human, one must address 1 then followed by 2 and thence 3. [nb: the order is not imperative]

So in general, one need to know 'what one can do' before one can take actions relating to what one can do. 'Can' in this case has extensive implications in relation to Ethics. The 'is-ought' [or ought-is] dilemma must be resolved.

'What one can do' is generally cover within 'Ethics' but to be more effective, we should note there are the Pure and Applied aspects [like any other subjects] to it.

The 'Pure' aspects of 'what one can do' relate to the core principles, i.e. theory only. This is called 'Morality' which is gleaned from 1 -what can I know.
The 'Applied' aspects relate to the implementations of the how-to-act [what can I do] in accordance to the inherent or established moral principles [Pure]. This is Practical Ethics or simply 'ethics'.

The principles of Pure and Applied is very natural to humanity, note Pure & Applied as in Mathematics, General Science, Physics, Economics, etc. So there is no issue when applied to subject concerning the right human behaviors, as Morality and Ethics.

From 'what can I know' the drive for the right human actions [i.e. ethics] is established via the overriding moral principles relating to survival, i.e. optimal survival to facilitate the preservation of the human species.
This drive is driven spontaneously within humanity regardless of whether humans know about it. Thus to know it would be more effective for humans to act collectively for the common good.

The processes of Pure and Applied [Morality & Ethics] is so natural that it is even imputed within Theological Morality.
There is no real God [its illusory] but the supposedly Pure Moral Principles [immutable] from such an illusory God in a Theological Morality & Ethical system nevertheless do work very effectively relative the current state of human evolution and psychology.
We have even tolerated a Theological Morality where God [Allah] command believers to kill non-believers [under vague conditions] and other commands that are evil-laden.

But as humans continue to evolve the net-pros of Theological Morality is trending towards net-cons situation, as such must be replaced by fool-proofs [note this critical requirements], effective and optimal secular Morality and Ethics.