Philosophy Now Forum

duszek wrote:I would not hire Amundsen for writing cozy stories for children,
nor Andersen for discovering the North Pole.

Perhaps the other way round.

How do you assess "result" ?
By figures delivered by an accountant ?
Or by a statistician ?

2nd time you can't give a stragiht answer, which only indicated that you think about him just as I. Very well.

Again you show that you are a mere cozy chatter when you ask silly rudementary questions, it should be very clear what "result" means, even children has an intuivite understanding of this this word.

prof wrote:

Ginkgo wrote: Prof, you don't think that you are starting out with a normative position and then switching to a denontological position?

Greetings, Ginkgo

I don't think so. I think deontological positions are also normative posititions.

It helps to keep in mind that the Ethicist was addressing a philosophical Layman. Of course Normative Ethics came into it. Maybe the whole exercise was too theoretical for the average working person. Likely the thread was written for the philosopher after all. Did it give you something to think about? If so, it succeeded in its goal.

Did it direct you to some action you could take? ...such as looking up the Axiogenics website of Peter Demerest and then following through - at http://www.amindforsuccess.com/ or going to Roots Action to uoin in the petition drives.... If so, you have put Ethics into live action!!

Sorry Prof, I meant to get back to you on this one but I forgot.


I think I can see what you are getting at. So yes, you got me thinking about it. I will have to admit that Ethics is not one of my favourite branches of philosophy, but I could grow to like it.

You seems to be talking about morality as an ongoing process of discovery. It evolves according to the circumstances upon which we find ourselves from time to time. Ultimately, I think morality is about making a judgement. This is why I agree with Hume when he wants to claim that reason is a slave of the emotions. Most of us want to claim that our moral judgements are based on reason, but in fact they are not. When it comes to moral judgement, we bring in reason after the event.

On this basis would you say that morality should evolve according to how we feel about changing circumstances? In other words, we need to keep to keep it flexible. We also need to keep in mind that our moral justification that we want to call reasonable is the result of our circumstances. In other words, the cultural circumstances we find ourselves within. Our emotional responses that we pass of as reason is actually psychologically grounded.

For morality to progress or evolve we need to recognize this fact. Anyway, enough at my attempt at putting words into your mouth.

Hi, ginkgo

Yes, morality, as I define it, is an ongoing process of discovery by an individual about his/her inner life, and self-development.

Yes, we do make judgments in most all of our waking hours. And yes, every judgment that is a choice does contain an emotional component. Whether reason is dominant, or one's emotions are dominant depends upon the specific situation; sometimes its one, sometimes the other. So far very feew moral judgments have been based upon reason. The advent of a Science of Ethics may have the result that more of these judgments will be grounded in reason but it is okay if they are spontaneous and intuitive - with reason having a background role. Once "doing the right thing" becomes a habit one does not have to reason out why it was made part of one's character, by a conscious choice we once made, or by the rearing we had from our parents, foster-parents, mentors, or by the impact of our culture.

Yes, we need to be flexible. You are right about that. And it is true that we are a product largely of our cultural circumstances - yet these can be overcome. Cultures evolve. Did you notice the section in BASIC ETHICS http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz entitled "Stages of Evolution in Ethical Insight" pp. 20-22. There you get the big picture as to where world culture is eventually heading - provided that - due to ignorance of Ethics - we don't make our species largely extinct first.

As you may know, there is a Science of Moral Psychology, in which active research is being conducted. You can look it up with a search tool to learn about its progress. One branch of it is working to ground ethics in theories about how cooperation has naturally evolved in human history. I'll have more to say about this in a new thread; and I shall give sources which those who are interested can pursue further. I'll mention the names of the philosophical psychologists, biologists, and anthropologists, all of who are trying to bring some clarity into ethics.

henry quirk wrote:"A good set of principles helps us live harmoniously with other people in society, and to foster sweeter cooperation to solve problems. ... we can't truly maximize the quality of our own lives unless we maximize the quality of other people's lives as well." --prof

For some, 'maximizing of the 'quality of living' comes from successfully navigating others, not 'cooperating' with them.


The problem, Prof, with your dialog is this: to live a moral life means be true to yourself (as long as you "live harmoniously", and 'cooperate sweetly')...in your set up, an ethic (a codified opinion or preference) trumps the individual, which is absurd.

Hello, Henry

Noticed several confusions here....

Nowhere in what I wrote did it say that we cooperate with everyone; only that on a project you both (or you all) agree on as worth doing are you to cooperate. Several moral philosophers view Ethics as being: the study of the evolution of greater cooperation among members of the human species. They have allied, in this understanding, with Anthropologists and with Moral Psychologists.

If you studied the system that I'm talking about, the Unified Theory of Ethics - http://tinyurl.com/27pzhbf - you will recall that it advocates Conscientious Objection.: It directs us to resist authority when this is called for; that is to say, when faced with an unjust law, or with being coerced without - to justify why - the charge being given you as to your violation - and you have had a chance to confer with your lawyer. In an Ethical world authority proceeds from the bottom up: it is placed within the individual. The moral principle is to empower individuals whenever you can.

An ethic is NOT "a codified opinion." The principles emerging from the deductions within the Science of Ethics are facilitators of life: they tell us how to function better.

Ethics [at least my system proposed] does not "trump the individual" If it is the right system, the system of Ethics that I offered you, it affirms the Individual. Along with Kierkegaard I place the Individual highest ! How did you get the impression otherwise??

"How did you get the impression otherwise?"

Probably just my prejudices showing.

I have significant problems with being told what is 'right' or 'wrong' when I can assess those things for myself.

Embedded in the notion of a "Science of Ethics" is an (evolving) 'right' that applies, or should apply, to everyone across the board.

I cannot support such a thing.

#

"Conscientious Objection": HA! I learned to say 'no' a long time ago, and to say 'no' for 'my' reasons, not those I'm "directed" to observe.

#

"The principles emerging from the deductions within the Science of Ethics are facilitators of life: they tell us how to function better."

No doubt, for most people, most the time, this may be the case.

What of the deviant, the aberration, the sport?

Should such a person willingly submit to 're-education' so as to be in line with the majority?

#

Kierkegaard had, I think, some peculiar ideas of what it meant to be 'individual' (and, of what a life's purpose should be).

Let's say for the moment the culture was dominated by the kind of Christian Existentialism promoted by Sad Soren: again, what of the deviant?

prof wrote: In an Ethical world authority proceeds from the bottom up: it is placed within the individual. The moral principle is to empower individuals whenever you can.

Then we do not live in an 'ethical world'.

henry quirk wrote: "Conscientious Objection": HA! I learned to say 'no' a long time ago, and to say 'no' for 'my' reasons, not those I'm "directed" to observe.
Let's say for the moment the culture was dominated by the kind of Christian Existentialism promoted by Sad Soren: again, what of the deviant?

I'm with Henry on this one. Many years ago I worked as a draftsman in a mfg. plant and during an evaluation with my supervisor I was asked, "To what do you aspire". In college I had read "The Peter Principle", and had decided that when I found a job I liked, I was going to stay in it. So I answered that I didn't aspire to anything, I liked to draw and that is where I wanted to stay. The supervisor objected and insisted that I must aspire to something, so he put down that I aspired to be a Technician.

HA!

Gotta love the well-intentioned (just before lockin' 'em up).

henry quirk wrote:HA!

Gotta love the well-intentioned (just before lockin' 'em up).

Wishful thinking.

HA!

Wishful thinking for me is more along the lines of 'shootin' 'em in the head'.

Seeing that supervisor of yours (and all the dinks 'here' who are just like him) in jail is my just being 'nice'.

henry quirk wrote:HA!

Wishful thinking for me is more along the lines of 'shootin' 'em in the head'.

Seeing that supervisor of yours (and all the dinks 'here' who are just like him) in jail is my just being 'nice'.

Oh you're such a nice guy, wait, what's that, a hole in your head, figures!

Why not use nuclear warheads, or is that just way too cowardly?

"Why not use nuclear warheads(?)"

Given sufficient provocation (and access to atomics) I use 'em in a New York minute.

henry quirk wrote:"Why not use nuclear warheads(?)"

Given sufficient provocation (and access to atomics) I use 'em in a New York minute.

Is that a reference to minutemen.

henry quirk wrote:"Why not use nuclear warheads(?)"

Given sufficient provocation (and access to atomics) I use 'em in a New York minute.

No you don't know what I mean, at ground zero!!!!!!

So now let me hear you virtually beat your virtual chest some more!!!!!

Coward!!!

Blaggard wrote:

henry quirk wrote:"Why not use nuclear warheads(?)"

Given sufficient provocation (and access to atomics) I use 'em in a New York minute.

Is that a reference to minutemen.

he, he, he, see me the little girly; obviously a combination of braggart and laggard! The minute-man he knows only too well!!! By the way that's pronounced both (min-it) and (mahy-noot).


Such a little girly girl; we know something and he don't, he he he; little girly girl "in deed!"