Philosophy Now Forum

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?

I do not think that Ethics is best used to solve problems, but to suggest alternatives and to show consequences and inconsistencies.

A dilemma implies at least two pathways. Either choice can be made, Ethics shows the way through and what that might mean in terms of an underlying paradigm.

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 5:54 am

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.

I take it you're both a delusional chooser and a twister, choiceless twisting being your obvious intent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1o3cbLYoIY


In this situation, of greater significance is the detached, non-involved mirroring that makes the mirrored phenomenon, rather than the mirroring aspect of mind, the source of a karmic spiking within the continuum of change, which results in regulating ethics to a necessary map of sorts* for the mirrored one to generate good karma until equanimity naturally liberates attachment to the map, and the ethics pertaining to any particular situation spontaneously generates from the natural compassion that generates good karma, if it generates any karma at all.

* The guiding conscience voice of parent and/or mentor in the head that guides.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:06 pm In this situation, of greater significance is the detached, non-involved mirroring that makes the mirrored phenomenon, rather than the mirroring aspect of mind, the source of a karmic spiking within the continuum of change, which results in regulating ethics to a necessary map of sorts* for the mirrored one to generate good karma until equanimity naturally liberates attachment to the map, and the ethics pertaining to any particular situation spontaneously generates from the natural compassion that generates good karma, if it generates any karma at all.

Is this a joke?

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:06 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 5:54 amYou can have incorruptible institutions, or you can have freedom. I take it you choose incorruptible institutions over freedom.

I take it you're both a delusional chooser and a twister, choiceless twisting being your obvious intent.

Choiceless intent? You really are a fucking idiot, aren't you? It's simple Walker. If you insist that institutions are incorruptible, they own you. You are no longer free.

Oy, another uncomprehending, unlicensed elevator inspector full of himself and his dead thoughts.

This fellow rationally dismantles the ostensible, non-rational, non-scientific justification for totalitarian control of the population, therefore his words are ethically rooted in the inherent sense of individuality born to each person in the world as evidenced by the freedom of children who are loved, which never-the-less can get sublimated by conditioning given the evidence of what some folks say and do.

Clear, rational thought progressing from basic facts such as presented in the link does soothe sensibilities through the ethics of speaking the relative truth of a situation, in contrast with the daily truth diversions served up by the ideologically-driven Left.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-V1Tmr7S6g

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:40 pmIf you insist that institutions are incorruptible ...

Walker wrote:Take any institution currently being corrupted by the Left, which is most all of them.

Moron. "Nuff said."

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:07 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:06 pm In this situation, of greater significance is the detached, non-involved mirroring that makes the mirrored phenomenon, rather than the mirroring aspect of mind, the source of a karmic spiking within the continuum of change, which results in regulating ethics to a necessary map of sorts* for the mirrored one to generate good karma until equanimity naturally liberates attachment to the map, and the ethics pertaining to any particular situation spontaneously generates from the natural compassion that generates good karma, if it generates any karma at all.

Is this a joke?

And thus, he was struck so dumb by incomprehension as to be incapable of a coherent transmission.

Referring to the definitions provided here I'd opt for 2 c "a guiding philosophy". Thus the point of ethics is simply an individual way/conduct of life that entails what is desired.

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 4:55 am

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:40 pmIf you insist that institutions are incorruptible ...

Walker wrote:Take any institution currently being corrupted by the Left, which is most all of them.

Well, there's this:

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 4:49 amShould US institutions be corrupted?
...
Right says no because the constitution is divinely inspired by the best of The Age of Enlightenment, its wisdom not limited by time.

Or this:

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 4:16 amThe point of marriage is for man and woman to join in a blessed sacrament (whether or not it's called that) for procreation.

You are free to have your own opinions, but to demand they be shared by everyone is antithetical to freedom.

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 4:55 amMoron. "Nuff said."

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 4:16 amIn formulating words for your outrage, remember the purpose of philosophy is principle, not person. Uh huh.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 10:06 pm ethic is crowd control, nothing more

-Imp

But that's a lot.

You fall in love with a married person. Will you pursue an affair with this person or not? Without a personal ethics, you will always be confused. People who do not know what is right and wrong are always confused. Their lives are confusing. Ethics prevents confusion. It also structures and simplifies one's life. If you have a code of ethical code of conduct, moral questions such as the above example will be a easy and immediately answered.

Perpetual confusion is stressful, draining, and time consuming. Clarity, certainty and definitiveness free us from confusion so that we can attend to other matters such as living, loving, and growing.

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:41 amYou are free to have your own opinions, but to demand they be shared by everyone is antithetical to freedom.

Such a corruption you attempt with your confused thinking.

The constitution is the basis of law in the United States.

Following the law isn't a matter of opinion that any fool may have, although the Left has corrupted the law into a matter of opinion by corrupting most if not all institutions, including marriage. Also, by exempting the elites from the laws of society. Used to be society did demand that folks follow the law ... however the corruption of that institution is the defund-the-police movement.

For instance, Leftists in the Congress with a hair-slim majority, in cahoots with the president, have been trying to ram through all kinds of unconstitutional laws that will cripple the country, thus corrupting both those institutions and the constitution.

Gracias for the opportunity to highlight and correct your ignorance, which is shared by other Leftists.

I urge you to do some homework and watch your tone, young man, unless your weird habits include pleasure from being pissed on. Uh huh.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 6:48 am

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:41 amYou are free to have your own opinions, but to demand they be shared by everyone is antithetical to freedom.

Such a corruption you attempt with your confused thinking.

The constitution is the basis of law in the United States.

You seem to believe that the constitution protects only your rights.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 6:48 amFollowing the law isn't a matter of opinion that any fool may have...

But changing it is; that is the reason for elections and indeed the 27 amendments to the constitution.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 6:48 amFor instance, Leftists in the Congress with a hair-slim majority, in cahoots with the president, have been trying to ram through all kinds of unconstitutional laws that will cripple the country...

Name one.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 11:19 am

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?

I do not think that Ethics is best used to solve problems, but to suggest alternatives and to show consequences and inconsistencies.

A dilemma implies at least two pathways. Either choice can be made, Ethics shows the way through and what that might mean in terms of an underlying paradigm.

This is not typically an area I bother to delve in, since i find it extremely boring.

But since atheists insist there is nothing beyond the love of a bloke...

SO.

Since we are SOCIAL ANIMALS certainly it MUST make sense that we behave ETHICALY - or ELSE?