Page 3 of 4
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:51 pm
by Skepdick
You seem to be working your way up to Aristotle's four causes. And you seem to be asking re: the telos/end purpose/final cause of ethics.
The crux of this issue is (as always): from whose perspective?
If you adopt the 1st person perspective, then it begs the question: it is sensible to speak about a telos that extends beyond your own life?
And if you are speaking about a telos that extends beyond your own life, then are you really speaking from the 1st person perspective?
RC
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 4:03 pm
by henry quirk
The question of ethics is, what is the objective, the destination (metaphorically) one needs ethical principles to guide them to(?)
Damn good question: I'm gonna have to think on it. I have an idea, but I need to codify it.
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:18 pm
by Sculptor
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 1:52 am
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?
If there are actions which are identified as ethically "wrong," or, "bad," what difference does it make if anyone does them? If there are actions which are identified as ethically, "right," or, "good," what difference does it make if those acts are neglected. If there is no identifiable objective or purpose to conforming or not conforming to ethical principles, what is their point?
[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.]
This is purely circular.
Stuff that is morally bad is defined as such because it is generally preferable not to do those things.
And stuff that is thought to be good to do is the stuff defined as morally good.
Often the wires get crossed, and what one person thinks is bad, is thought good by another.
That's where claims of objective morality usually reside.
A considering butt f*cking to be perverted; they have no personal interest in it, but want to proscribe it in other people by imposing their morality upon them. They claim that butt f*cking is immoral and make laws to stop others doing it.
Rarely are any moral laws unequivocally bad or good, as it always depends on the context, and the degree to which potential victims, recipents or benficiaries are valued in society.
Aristotle claims that war is morally just when it is waged against barbarians and lesser peoples.
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:03 pm
by RCSaunders
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:18 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 1:52 am
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?
If there are actions which are identified as ethically "wrong," or, "bad," what difference does it make if anyone does them? If there are actions which are identified as ethically, "right," or, "good," what difference does it make if those acts are neglected. If there is no identifiable objective or purpose to conforming or not conforming to ethical principles, what is their point?
[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.]
This is purely circular.
Stuff that is morally bad is defined as such because it is generally preferable not to do those things.
That's the question, Sculptor. Preferable for what?
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:18 pm
And stuff that is thought to be good to do is the stuff defined as morally good.
That's the same thing. Something cannot just be, "good," can it? Doesn't have to be good for something to someone?
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:18 pm
Often the wires get crossed, and what one person thinks is bad, is thought good by another.
That's where claims of objective morality usually reside.
A considering butt f*cking to be perverted; they have no personal interest in it, but want to proscribe it in other people by imposing their morality upon them. They claim that butt f*cking is immoral and make laws to stop others doing it.
Rarely are any moral laws unequivocally bad or good, as it always depends on the context, and the degree to which potential victims, recipents or benficiaries are valued in society.
Aristotle claims that war is morally just when it is waged against barbarians and lesser peoples.
No doubt there is little agreement on what ethical principles are, but so long as no specific purpose or objective of ethical principles is identified I doubt if differences in what such principles are can ever be resolved.
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 7:28 pm
by Sculptor
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:03 pm
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:18 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 1:52 am
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?
If there are actions which are identified as ethically "wrong," or, "bad," what difference does it make if anyone does them? If there are actions which are identified as ethically, "right," or, "good," what difference does it make if those acts are neglected. If there is no identifiable objective or purpose to conforming or not conforming to ethical principles, what is their point?
[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.]
This is purely circular.
Stuff that is morally bad is defined as such because it is generally preferable not to do those things.
That's the question, Sculptor. Preferable for what?
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:18 pm
And stuff that is thought to be good to do is the stuff defined as morally good.
That's the same thing. Something cannot just be, "good," can it? Doesn't have to be good for something to someone?
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:18 pm
Often the wires get crossed, and what one person thinks is bad, is thought good by another.
That's where claims of objective morality usually reside.
A considering butt f*cking to be perverted; they have no personal interest in it, but want to proscribe it in other people by imposing their morality upon them. They claim that butt f*cking is immoral and make laws to stop others doing it.
Rarely are any moral laws unequivocally bad or good, as it always depends on the context, and the degree to which potential victims, recipents or benficiaries are valued in society.
Aristotle claims that war is morally just when it is waged against barbarians and lesser peoples.
No doubt there is little agreement on what ethical principles are, but so long as no specific purpose or objective of ethical principles is identified I doubt if differences in what such principles are can ever be resolved.
"Good is that which pleaseth man, Evil is that which pleaseth him not" Thomas Hobbes
When you reject good and evil as forces of nature of of absolutes then true understanding comes. What is good and bad depends.
It depends on who you are, where you are, when you are and what are the circumstances. Considerations might include your ideas about the welfare of the species, your family, your tribe, or you as an individual.
Killing is good and bad. War is good and bad.
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:13 pm
by RCSaunders
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 7:28 pm
What is good and bad depends.
Of course. There's no debate here. Good and bad depend. The question is,
"depends on what?"
If somebody hands you a bottle containing some substance and says, "that's good," does that tell you anything if you don't know what it's good for: food, quenching thirst, killing rats, feeding your plants, or removing paint? All those are good for something, but only if you know what the something is.
I want to know if ethical principles are good for something and if they are what that something is.
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:32 pm
by Sculptor
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:13 pm
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 7:28 pm
What is good and bad depends.
Of course. There's no debate here. Good and bad depend. The question is,
"depends on what?"
I told you already.
If somebody hands you a bottle containing some substance and says, "that's good," does that tell you anything if you don't know what it's good for: food, quenching thirst, killing rats, feeding your plants, or removing paint? All those are good for something, but only if you know what the something is.
I want to know if ethical principles are good for something and if they are what that something is.
Shared experience.
Social control
Education of children in the ways of society.
Foundation of law
Scrutiny of power.
ad nauseam
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2020 1:15 am
by RCSaunders
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:32 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:13 pm
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 7:28 pm
What is good and bad depends.
Of course. There's no debate here. Good and bad depend. The question is,
"depends on what?"
I told you already.
If somebody hands you a bottle containing some substance and says, "that's good," does that tell you anything if you don't know what it's good for: food, quenching thirst, killing rats, feeding your plants, or removing paint? All those are good for something, but only if you know what the something is.
I want to know if ethical principles are good for something and if they are what that something is.
Shared experience.
Social control
Education of children in the ways of society.
Foundation of law
Scrutiny of power.
ad nauseam
OK. Thanks Sculptor.
Re: RC
Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2020 1:32 pm
by henry quirk
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 4:03 pm
The question of ethics is, what is the objective, the destination (metaphorically) one needs ethical principles to guide them to(?)
Damn good question: I'm gonna have to think on it. I have an idea, but I need to codify it.
mulled it over
mebbe ethics aren't about the destination (a man already has a compass to point the way)
mebbe ethics are the rules a man binds himself with to stay on track
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2020 3:04 pm
by Impenitent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX009sWzRQg
"I hear that train a comin'..."
the only person who wants people on the track is Snidley Whiplash
-Imp
Re: RC
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 2:34 am
by RCSaunders
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 1:32 pm
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 4:03 pm
The question of ethics is, what is the objective, the destination (metaphorically) one needs ethical principles to guide them to(?)
Damn good question: I'm gonna have to think on it. I have an idea, but I need to codify it.
mulled it over
mebbe ethics aren't about the destination (a man already has a compass to point the way)
I find that very hard to believe. If there really were such a, "compass," why are most human beings perpetually lost? Nobody who is really trying to get somewhere refuses to use a compass if they have one. What most people have, which they mistake for their compass, are feelings and desires, which obviously do not lead them to much success.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 1:32 pm
mebbe ethics are the rules a man binds himself with to stay on track.
I'm afraid that's right, only they never do know what the right track is.
A compass is no good unless someone already has a destination in mind. The compass points north, but if what you want is warmer weather, north is the wrong direction. You can stay on track, which will make you consistent, but if it's the wrong track you still won't get where you would like to go.
Just my thoughts, Henry.
RC
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 4:07 am
by henry quirk
If there really were such a, "compass," why are most human beings perpetually lost?
cuz while we each have a compass, none of us is obligated to mind it
free will
A compass is no good unless someone already has a destination in mind.
in context: the destination is the same for all men
the end of life
the compass (moral sense, conscience) points true north (what is right), but there are no maps outlinin' what's between where a man is and where he's headin'
every life has here there be dragons in the big space we call future
ethics, I'm supposin', are the rules of the road and the measure for how well one attends to his compass
for example...
as you trundle down the road of your life you are confronted by a mighty chasm (problem)
your compass (moral sense) points true north but tells you nuthin' about how to bridge the gap
ethics, the rules of the road, the survival tips for the traveller, let you intelligently assess the chasm and most cleanly stick with true north
mebbe you can walk around the chasm, or mebbe you can build a bridge over the chasm, or mebbe you'll just have to man up and climb down into the chasm and deal with what lives there then climb back up to the opposite side
ethics mebbe is that which lets a man take pride in a life well-lived
Re: RC
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 2:12 pm
by RCSaunders
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 4:07 am
If there really were such a, "compass," why are most human beings perpetually lost?
cuz while we each have a compass, none of us is obligated to mind it
free will
A compass is no good unless someone already has a destination in mind.
in context: the destination is the same for all men
the end of life
the compass (moral sense, conscience) points true north (what is right), but there are no maps outlinin' what's between where a man is and where he's headin'
every life has
here there be dragons in the big space we call
future
ethics, I'm supposin', are the rules of the road and the measure for how well one attends to his compass
for example...
as you trundle down the road of your life you are confronted by a mighty chasm (problem)
your compass (moral sense) points true north but tells you nuthin' about how to bridge the gap
ethics, the rules of the road, the survival tips for the traveller, let you intelligently assess the chasm and most cleanly stick with true north
mebbe you can walk around the chasm, or mebbe you can build a bridge over the chasm, or mebbe you'll just have to man up and climb down into the chasm and deal with what lives there then climb back up to the opposite side
ethics mebbe is that which lets a man take pride in a life well-lived
You started off quaint and clever but you ended well. I'll start there.
ethics ... is that which lets a man take pride in a life well-lived
That is essentially my view. I'd say it a little differently, perhaps, "ethics are the principles one needs to live one's life well, a life fully enjoyed and worth living. That would be the only kind of life one could take pride in."
How you got to that conclusion seems like
Pilgrim's Progress, (have you been reading Bunyan?), as though life was a chore or something to be endured to the end. (I'm only saying that's the impression it makes, not what you intended.) I regard life as a great adventure to be achieved and living it as the only objective of life. Everything has a beginning and an end, (birth and death), but they are incidentals that define the limits, only what is,
while it is, matters.
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 2:30 pm
by henry quirk
Pilgrim's Progress
never read it
to be honest: my little thoughts on ethics is just me throwing stuff against the wall and seein' what sticks
i don't think about it
in my day-to-day, like everyone, I come across circumstances where I have to choose
I try to do right, and I try to do right in a way that satisfies ownness, that doesn't violate others and where I'm not violated
doin' right means sometimes I have to climb down into the chasm and just contend
it would be easier to walk around, but easy isn't always right
hell, most of the time right, doin' it, isn't easy
Re: RC
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:13 pm
by Immanuel Can
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 2:12 pm
How you got to that conclusion seems like
Pilgrim's Progress, (have you been reading Bunyan?), as though life was a chore or something to be endured to the end.
Well, that's not a "chore," but a "pilgrimage". A "pilgrimage" has a very desirable destination, and a "chore" is merely a nuisance.
If you remember, Pilgrim's destination is the Celestial City. And stopping short of it put one in some place like Vanity Fair, where things seemed to be more fun and not nearly so much work; but by abandoning the pilgrimage, one ended up in a cage.
Just sayin'.