Philosophy Now Forum

Ethics are objectified time.

To Whom It May Concern:

'Tis better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.




This truth is relevant and helpful to any who play the game "Aint it awful !" ....You know who you are.


To end on an upbeat note, and along the lines of our current discussion.....

===For those of you who might have missed it, it could be wise to review the second and third posts at this thread, HERE: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11198

Check it out. Let me know your impressions by replying there.

prof wrote:

John K wrote:... I see is what I would call 'human entropy.'...if we haven't gotten it right in all these years (with less world population), what needs to happen in order to do so? ....

John
You speak of "human entropy" and ask (perhaps rhetorically): " if we haven't gotten it right in all these years..." You imply we'll never get it right.

Why your ellipsis? I'm asking a question. It's even replete with a question mark.

Without the back-up or even the will amongst the most powerful governments of the world to enforce these rights, those rights are just a pretty aspiration; empty words.

Not a bad point, Hobbes. "Rights" are not trumps, cards you can pull out anytime and win the hand just by playing them. They have to be grounded in an authority capable of asserting them. If "universal" is the sort of rights one wants, then they would have to come from a "universal" authority.

That being said, there are two ways of looking at the "rights" problem, and I can see that you and others (like say Qman) are actually missing each other by speaking from different suppositions. If "rights" means "things humans grant each other," then they are provisional arragements made by particular societies, with no binding force beyond those socities. If "rights" means "things written into the order of the universe that we would always 'owe' each other totally apart from our realization of that fact," then the situation would be quite different.

This misunderstanding is often complicated by the fact that the same person can flip back and forth between the two "right" definitions in a single sentence, without realizing he/she is doing it.

Likewise "universal," which can mean "everywhere" or "in the fabric of the universe itself." With such equivocation possible, it's hard to know precisely what we're discussing.

Maybe we need to define it better.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Without the back-up or even the will amongst the most powerful governments of the world to enforce these rights, those rights are just a pretty aspiration; empty words.

Not a bad point, Hobbes. "Rights" are not trumps, cards you can pull out anytime and win the hand just by playing them. They have to be grounded in an authority capable of asserting them. If "universal" is the sort of rights one wants, then they would have to come from a "universal" authority.

That being said, there are two ways of looking at the "rights" problem, and I can see that you and others (like say Qman) are actually missing each other by speaking from different suppositions. If "rights" means "things humans grant each other," then they are provisional arragements made by particular societies, with no binding force beyond those socities. If "rights" means "things written into the order of the universe that we would always 'owe' each other totally apart from our realization of that fact," then the situation would be quite different.

This misunderstanding is often complicated by the fact that the same person can flip back and forth between the two "right" definitions in a single sentence, without realizing he/she is doing it.

Likewise "universal," which can mean "everywhere" or "in the fabric of the universe itself." With such equivocation possible, it's hard to know precisely what we're discussing.

Maybe we need to define it better.

This sort of equation....
"Likewise "universal," which can mean "everywhere" or "in the fabric of the universe itself." With such equivocation possible, it's hard to know precisely what we're discussing."
... and the people that believe that such a thing is even meaningful are the problem to which the solution is simply common sense.
As it is this sort of formulation that gives the emptiness to the decarative formulation.
Such people can sit back and relax, pretending that it is man's evil that has 'taken away' these rights that supposedly exist objectively, universally, or even divinely.
But the fact is that these 'rights' have never been enjoyed; they are not been taken away due to man's greed, but by the limitations of the environment, or by the cold hard facts of economics.
There never was a garden of Eden, no idyllic Elysium or bucolic wonderland where all our dreams have come true. It takes hard work, and personal sacrifice to help those that needs it. Sadly no system is stable and one generation helped means another using twice the resources and applying twice the pressure on the earth's shrinking resources.
Such universalising is hopeless, religious, empty.

-


Hopeless, hopeless, hopeless.....

So let's not envision an ethics that would apply all over this planet, nor dream that everywhere on Earth civilization would set in. Nor that people will be civil.

Let's not speculate what such a world society would look like. Let's ignore what Lincoln babbled when he muttered, "Without vision the people perish." What did he know about anything.

Yes, let's throw cold water on any ethical theory that comes up, for every system has some flaws. What's the benefit of a system anyway? Why think Systemically? ....Just because it helps you see that there is more than one dot?! Just because it helps you connect the dots?! Just because it shows you another perspective, or helps you make more efficient use of resources? Who needs theory !! It's all imperfect; that is true. So let's junk it all. Don't build. Destroy.

You'll never catch me "lighting a candle." I prefer to curse the darkness

Sincerely,
Tom Hobbes.

[In fact, my book, LEVIATHAN, is selling well. So what do I care about you boobs !]

prof wrote:-


Hopeless, hopeless, hopeless.....

So let's not envision an ethics that would apply all over this planet, nor dream that everywhere on Earth civilization would set in. Nor that people will be civil.

Let's not speculate what such a world society would look like. Let's ignore what Lincoln babbled when he muttered, "Without vision the people perish." What did he know about anything.

Yes, let's throw cold water on any ethical theory that comes up, for every system has some flaws. What's the benefit of a system anyway? Why think Systemically? ....Just because it helps you see that there is more than one dot?! Just because it helps you connect the dots?! Just because it shows you another perspective, or helps you make more efficient use of resources? Who needs theory !! It's all imperfect; that is true. So let's junk it all. Don't build. Destroy.

You'll never catch me "lighting a candle." I prefer to curse the darkness

Sincerely,
Tom Hobbes.

[In fact, my book, LEVIATHAN, is selling well. So what do I care about you boobs !]

I've read and studied Leviathan, if you had, you would not be saying that.

What does universal ethics look like?













What do all these people have in common?

Like the "prof" they all believe in Universal Ethics.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I've read and studied Leviathan, if you had, you would not be saying that.

What would I be saying?

prof wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I've read and studied Leviathan, if you had, you would not be saying that.

What would I be saying?

You'd probably be disagreeing with 80% of it.

Hi,

Do you want rule by an absolute sovereign? Since that is one of the main things the book, Leviathan, argues for.

Based upon your life-experience, Hobbes Choice, do you believe that human interaction is a case of "war of all against all"? As that is how Thomas Hobbes perceived what he called 'the state of Nature.'

He writes, that in effect, Even when two men are not fighting, there is no guarantee that the other will not try to kill him for his property - including his wife, which in those days was 'property' - or just out of an aggrieved sense of honour, and so they must constantly be on guard against one another. It is even reasonable to preemptively attack one's neighbour. What brings a society together is fear of the greatest evil, rather than any aims which are good.

In light of the evidence presented by working Psychologists and Neurologists such as Joshua Greene and and Paul Bloom {the author of the very recent book, Origins of Good and Evil. Sam Harris just interviewed Dr. Bloom See his recent Blog, HERE: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... d-and-evil }, and in view of the extensive research done by Jeremy Rifkin for his book The Empathic Civilization, we humans are pre-wired at birth to be nice to each other - unless we have a bit of brain damage; or suffer some form of neglect in our formative years - and thus the real "state of (human) nature" is empathic and compassionate. In 1651 they didn't know these facts. So Thos. Hobbes did the best he could based on the information he had or could dig up.

I agree that a social contract adds value, just as any contract does. Still better is a confidence that each of us has the welfare of all of us in his heart; that takes self-development, due to education, to the point of Enlightenment. {Of course we don't want to be overly-accepting, trusting, and gullible either. The secret is to find the balance between extremes.}

Not everyone, obviously, has yet had that amount of education. We don't trust one another yet; we are overly skeptical sometimes. This causes us to miss out on potential opportunities ...which we might have gained had we made sufficient inquiries and done enough research to close the perception gaps, and get to a place where we are comfortable, and have peace-of-mind instead of anxiety.

It takes some work, but it's worth it. Ask questions. Reflect. Ask more questions. Ask for the reasons why certain requirements are put in our path as we attempt to reach our goals. Ask what it would take to remove those obstacles, or to breeze through them; to turn a barrier into a turnstyle? But the key is to be problem-solving oriented. First we have to care. Do we really want to provide a Quality Life for all? Do we see the benefit this would have for us?

Are we smart enough to see it? There is a bell curve when it comes to intelligence, just as there is when it comes to height. But one can, through self-development, move oneself toward the genius end of the curve. Everyone can be an artist at something. We all have a contribution to make.

When we reach that place of enlightenment we won't whine nor complain, but will take effective actions to get us closer to fulfilling our shared goals. We'll seek common ground, and we'll work to make it happen.

Comments?

What does your Universal Ethical scheme say about...

1) Child circumcision.
2) Prostitution.
3) Sectioning under mental health law.

prof wrote:Hi,

Do you want rule by an absolute sovereign? Since that is one of the main things the book, Leviathan, argues for.

Based upon your life-experience, Hobbes Choice, do you believe that human interaction is a case of "war of all against all"? As that is how Thomas Hobbes perceived what he called 'the state of Nature.'

He writes, that in effect, Even when two men are not fighting, there is no guarantee that the other will not try to kill him for his property - including his wife, which in those days was 'property' - or just out of an aggrieved sense of honour, and so they must constantly be on guard against one another. It is even reasonable to preemptively attack one's neighbour. What brings a society together is fear of the greatest evil, rather than any aims which are good.

In light of the evidence presented by working Psychologists and Neurologists such as Joshua Greene and and Paul Bloom {the author of the very recent book, Origins of Good and Evil. Sam Harris just interviewed Dr. Bloom See his recent Blog, HERE: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... d-and-evil }, and in view of the extensive research done by Jeremy Rifkin for his book The Empathic Civilization, we humans are pre-wired at birth to be nice to each other - unless we have a bit of brain damage; or suffer some form of neglect in our formative years - and thus the real "state of (human) nature" is empathic and compassionate. In 1651 they didn't know these facts. So Thos. Hobbes did the best he could based on the information he had or could dig up.

I agree that a social contract adds value, just as any contract does. Still better is a confidence that each of us has the welfare of all of us in his heart; that takes self-development, due to education, to the point of Enlightenment. {Of course we don't want to be overly-accepting, trusting, and gullible either. The secret is to find the balance between extremes.}

Not everyone, obviously, has yet had that amount of education. We don't trust one another yet; we are overly skeptical sometimes. This causes us to miss out on potential opportunities ...which we might have gained had we made sufficient inquiries and done enough research to close the perception gaps, and get to a place where we are comfortable, and have peace-of-mind instead of anxiety.

It takes some work, but it's worth it. Ask questions. Reflect. Ask more questions. Ask for the reasons why certain requirements are put in our path as we attempt to reach our goals. Ask what it would take to remove those obstacles, or to breeze through them; to turn a barrier into a turnstyle? But the key is to be problem-solving oriented. First we have to care. Do we really want to provide a Quality Life for all? Do we see the benefit this would have for us?

Are we smart enough to see it? There is a bell curve when it comes to intelligence, just as there is when it comes to height. But one can, through self-development, move oneself toward the genius end of the curve. Everyone can be an artist at something. We all have a contribution to make.

When we reach that place of enlightenment we won't whine nor complain, but will take effective actions to get us closer to fulfilling our shared goals. We'll seek common ground, and we'll work to make it happen.

Comments?

Hobbes' scheme is just another universal ethical solution as is yours. Neither yours, nor his is remotely universal.

Let's clear up some confusion.

Mores =df.= the practices of a human culture.

Ethics is not to be confused with mores. They are two different and distinct concepts. The discipline of Ethics prescribes principles that serve to facilitate the living of the good life the way that Medicine prescribes drugs to take to relieve pain. [No one has to take the pills, and no one is forced to live a quality life. They can at least be presented with a choice, and then make up their mind if they want a hip replacement or a medication; or - in the case of Ethics - if they want to be more miserable than is necessary.]

I don't know what you mean by "universal." I'd like to understand how you define the word. What I mean by it is: around most of the planet, Earth. (It assumes that more effective Education - not propaganda - has spread around to more geographical areas than is the case today.) I definitely am not out "to convert the heathen" but rather to help those who are willing and ready to seek self-development with a view toward liberation from self-defeating ideas and notions. I will refer them to master educators - such as those offering the webinar course http://amindforsuccess.com


I am well-aware of the statistical Bell Curve for most human attributes. There will likely be some at the low end of the curve for the quality "caring" for a long, long time to come. There will always be a few psychopaths (incapable of empathy), and a few greed-heads (whose compulsion is untreatable - even though most cases can be); just as there will always be a few stupid people - relatively speaking. It could be that science will find that most of the psychos have brain damage, that they are handicapped that way. They need our respect just as any child (or adult) with special needs does. If someone is sightless, can't see, we don't put them down for it.

My system would give the same respect and deference to sex workers as to any other workers. Some non-profit social agencies will continue to be devoted to rescuing those who want to get out of the business; and some young ladies may, in order to widen the horizons of imagination, talk to the working girls about alternative ways to make money - if that turns out to be the main reason they pursue that profession .

There is noting wrong with child circumcision, though my system takes no stand on it. I personally believe men are better off having had it, for reasons of hygiene: less places for germs and dirt to gather.

I am ignorant as to what "sectioning" is in the mental health field. Please explain what you mean.

And be careful about the Fallacy of Excluded Middle. E.g., Stalin is a tyrant who believes x. Prof believes x. Therefore Prof is a tyrant or a Stalin. {You really ought to delete that set of pictures before somebody sees it....}

Let's keep the dialog going.

prof wrote:Let's clear up some confusion.

Mores =df.= the practices of a human culture.

Ethics is not to be confused with mores. They are two different and distinct concepts. The discipline of Ethics prescribes principles that serve to facilitate the living of the good life the way that Medicine prescribes drugs to take to relieve pain. [No one has to take the pills, and no one is forced to live a quality life. They can at least be presented with a choice, and then make up their mind if they want a hip replacement or a medication; or - in the case of Ethics - if they want to be more miserable than is necessary.]

I don't know what you mean by "universal." I'd like to understand how you define the word. What I mean by it is: around most of the planet, Earth. (It assumes that more effective Education - not propaganda - has spread around to more geographical areas than is the case today.) I definitely am not out "to convert the heathen" but rather to help those who are willing and ready to seek self-development with a view toward liberation from self-defeating ideas and notions. I will refer them to master educators - such as those offering the webinar course http://amindforsuccess.com


I am well-aware of the statistical Bell Curve for most human attributes. There will likely be some at the low end of the curve for the quality "caring" for a long, long time to come. There will always be a few psychopaths (incapable of empathy), and a few greed-heads (whose compulsion is untreatable - even though most cases can be); just as there will always be a few stupid people - relatively speaking. It could be that science will find that most of the psychos have brain damage, that they are handicapped that way. They need our respect just as any child (or adult) with special needs does. If someone is sightless, can't see, we don't put them down for it.

My system would give the same respect and deference to sex workers as to any other workers. Some non-profit social agencies will continue to be devoted to rescuing those who want to get out of the business; and some young ladies may, in order to widen the horizons of imagination, talk to the working girls about alternative ways to make money - if that turns out to be the main reason they pursue that profession .

There is noting wrong with child circumcision, though my system takes no stand on it. I personally believe men are better off having had it, for reasons of hygiene: less places for germs and dirt to gather.

I am ignorant as to what "sectioning" is in the mental health field. Please explain what you mean.

And be careful about the Fallacy of Excluded Middle. E.g., Stalin is a tyrant who believes x. Prof believes x. Therefore Prof is a tyrant or a Stalin. {You really ought to delete that set of pictures before somebody sees it....}

Let's keep the dialog going.

So your position on prostitution flies against the majority of ethical systems worldwide.
You position on genital mutilation is a contradiction of your own rights policy.
I suggest you find out more about it, especially FGM as practiced in the Muslim community.
http://orchidproject.org/?gclid=CM6vqvX ... tAod2TMAyA
By your words you are giving tacit consent for parents to remove the clitoris and sew up the vagina.
As for 'sectioning". A Mental Health "section" robs a person of basic human rights due to a judgement of incompetence, - you may have a different phrase to describe this where you come from.

No ethical system is capable of pre-deciding these issues.

As for the images. I was simply giving you some examples of people who have promoted what they call "universal ethics", their images literally express "What does universal ethics look like", Need I remind you is the title of the thread?

PS, As for your note on the meaning of "universal", it is rather idiosyncratic and your aim hopelessly arrogant and pretends a superiority you simply do not warrant.