Philosophy Now Forum

Okay, so I have wasted all this time learning grammar, syntax and spelling (clearly obsolete) when I could have learned, instead, to triangulate on shit to blow up from space. Possibly my last mistake.

Prof.... Keep the faith!

HexHammer wrote:You know the concept of "law"....

My dear friend, Hex:

Aren't there bad laws? For example, the laws of Germany under the Nazis; or the U.S. Alien and Sedition Act; or the loyalty oath laws; or, more recently, The Patriot Act.

Don''t we need a way to differentiate the bad laws from the good ones? In other words, don't we need a sense of values? Today, not enough people are clear on their values. Don't we need a theory of Ethics that provides more clarity in this area? Wouldn't a good ethical system do that?

Wouldn't a superior Ethical system direct us to put people first - before things, and before numbers and rigid regulations?

Check out BASIC ETHICS: A systematic approach. You are a sophisticated philosopher who would recognize quality when you see it. I trust you would get a lot out of it. After all, you're not one of those wiseguys who believes he knows it all already....

You, like I, have a respect for science. What I'm trying to do is to - eventually - make a science out of Ethics, so that it can perhaps serve as an antidote to the worst dangers of Physics ...when the latter is applied to the 'arts of warfare.' Every existing science was once Philosophy. There will still be plenty of work for moral philosophers to do as they pursue the Philosophy of Ethics (as a science) - just as now when Philosophy of Science is a deep field to mine.

prof wrote:Methinks it's time for folks to re-read "Why Ethics is Necessary." - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12194
or "Steps to Value Creation."
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9561&hilit=

Nope.

And when we do learn from history? When do we learn from history?
There have always been some individual who could see what was wrong and which path ought not to be taken, and every one of them was branded An Enemy of the People * - though a few were rehabilitated, even lionized [posthumously, of course] by the dynasty that benefited from the fall of the one that refused to listen.
We are an insane species, and we shall swarm right off that cliff together.

I agree that it is a brave individual who can see what is wrong, blows the whistle and has to live with the consequences.

I also 'get' the frustration that for all our talks of peace and Peace Talks, that when push comes to shove it is the Powerful who are in the driving seat.

No Grand Ethical blueprint will stop this. We all have a moral compass.
People, around the world, are now better informed and can react quickly to Dictatorial President's wrong decisions. One of globalisation's benefits.

Listening to Ch4 last night. Amazing reporting and interviews. Syria Peace talks; Kiev protests; female genital mutilation and Jon Snow's interview re GCHQ metadata collection. And so much more.
http://www.channel4.com/news/

The frustration sets in when - over and over again - humans must turn to violence.
What use building yet another Ethical theory?
Waving existing ethical codes might change the direction of the elite as they drive past in their limousines.
More important - is being kept aware of leaders and politicians who attempt to sneak in wrong laws which turn protesters into traitors. The environmentally-aware into 'Marxists'.

Skip wrote:Okay, so I have wasted all this time learning grammar, syntax and spelling (clearly obsolete) when I could have learned, instead, to triangulate on shit to blow up from space. Possibly my last mistake.

Skip - I must respond to some of our earlier conversation. Kinda difficult when a thread has run on a bit. However, thought I'd take the opportunity to say thanks - again!

prof wrote:

HexHammer wrote:prof

We already have very elaborate morals and ethics, just look them up, and we should discuss the aspects you think need changed.

No need in inventing the wheel all over.

You write: "We already have very elaborate morals and ethics" We do??

And you find that they - as does BASIC ETHICS - systematically address the problems of evil conduct, and they tell how to overcome it with some exactitude as to how to proceed?

Where do I look them up?!

I certainly do not want to "reinvent a wheel" that is working so well.

Prof - roll out your wheel, then. Let us see how BASIC ETHICS will 'systematically address the problems of evil conduct and how to overcome it with some exactitude as to how to proceed.'

Philosophical fumbling in the dark. There were Ten Humpty Dumpties sitting on the wall.

prof

You are answering your own questions, so the real question is why stateing the questions in the first place? Need attention or/and just want a cozy chat??!

marjoramblues wrote: Prof - roll out your wheel, then. Let us see how BASIC ETHICS will 'systematically address the problems...

See the link to it in the o.p. here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12179

It is a pamphlet ( only about 23 pp. in length if printed out on both sides of a page.) Else peruse it with your favorite reader program.


Let me know your impressions after you have looked it over. Okay?

Yes, yes - we all know about this pamphlet; some have even read it and offered criticism which you ignore. Pretty sure I did at some point; and got nowhere fast. So, no - I will not be re-reading, thanks.

{ The continual repetition of threads - seems to be a favourite ploy of some on this forum - simply scunnerating and a total turn-off; does that work for you? }

I will understand if you cannot answer in a clear and direct manner the issue you raised.
Again, and in full:

Prof - roll out your wheel, then. Let us see how BASIC ETHICS will 'systematically address the problems of evil conduct and how to overcome it with some exactitude as to how to proceed.

marjoramblues wrote:Yes, yes - we all know about this pamphlet; some have even read it and offered criticism which you ignore.

Hi, blues

The only criticism I recall getting was that I did not show the necessity of ethics. So then I wrote a thread arguing why Ethics is necessary.

I thought, at the time, that I answered the criticism with that thread.


If "the issue I raised" is How to proceed? then the Ethics system plainly responds to that by recommending that we all ask ourselves the Central Question of Life and Success whenever the occasion arises where it is appropriate - such as when we sense a perception gap. We are to seek how we might add value to the situation. "In what way can I generate positive value here and now? How can I maximize value for all concerned?" If each of us were mindful of this, and form a habit of doing this, we would have a better world. So the answer iis to educate everyone you can toward this end, with the aim of Each one, teach two - until a new ethos is thus created.

Get active ! Offer your leadership !

Skip wrote:I see no gaps or flaws. Looks like a sound skeleton

Dude pull out your head out of your ass, the whole thing is nothing but pure babble! Specially the freedom section, it should be very commonly known that <freedom of speech> should be part of that, to say that freedom is to move ones limbs is part of that, is pure babble.

I know the discussion has moved on; however, I feel Skip deserves a response. So, here goes:
Current reply is in bolds and quote boxes.

S: The people who make a fresh start will need to co-operate more ....
M: Doesn't that rather depend on what resources are available. If scarce, then there will be both cooperation and conflict. This does not require any kind of a theoretical concept of what it is to be human.
S: Scarcity pretty well goes without saying. The post-breakdown period will be very hard. That's exactly why the people will need a strong backbone of values, so that they support rather than annihilate one another. Even if co-operation prevails within communities, conflict among the communities can still result in extinction. A pre-breakdown ethical framework for human interaction and conflict resolution, shared by the majority of people, would at least give the survivors a chance at working things out.

M:

Given scarcity in the world, there will still be some resources left. It is already hard for many. Some have a strong set of values, based on religion or an in-built sense of what is right or wrong. Even today, these values compete at an individual - never mind societal level.
The bottom line is that even if you developed a Grand Charter of Human Rights and Conflict Resolution, it would not stand for 5 minutes.

Survivors in a post-breakdown scenario are not likely to 'work things out' by sharing some ethical pamphlet or book.

S: Look at the indigenous peoples...
M: Sorry, looking but can't find it; point me in the right direction - North, South, East, West?
S: Depends on where you are. North: the Innu. South-west US: the Navajo. You could do worse than to seek out the story-tellers of whichever native population you can reach. Or read Thomas King. (Fiction v. enjoyable.) Or any of the comprehensive books on traditional cultures http://www.barnesandnoble.com/c/frederick-e-hoxie or Australian or Mongolian...

M:

Yes, I've picked up some King; enjoyable indeed. However, what I meant originally was that you could look worlwide, backwards or present, and find 'tribes' everywhere. It does not follow that we can see, or pick up, some universal code and its fair application to all.

S:It's always about balance: the individual's responsibilities and rights....
M: Perhaps so; but eg the question of what is fair and unfair re workload, reward, care - does not require a concrete blueprint or Universal Theory of Ethics. Any final judgments might come from a tribal leader, a crazy mumblin' mad man...
S: No, they are not crazy mumbling. Elders have to earn their status; in most tribes they are elected. And it's rarely up to a single individual: council hearing is more usual. But then, indigenous people are rarely bothered about unfair work-load - that's a typical industrial state problem. Where nobody skims off the surplus as profit, nobody is exploited. Mothers don't consider it an undue burden to make an effort for their children; friends don't begrudge friends a day off for a sprained ankle, and where all effort translates into immediate benefit, hardly anybody shirks - and if they do, their reputation suffers.

M:

Elected elders - elected by whom; how do they earn their status. Already, we can see the potential for a lack of this so-called 'balance'. Strong men in power; power corrupts. Not all is rosy in tribal waters. Kingships by any other name. Some might be kind; others not - some princes turn mad and mumble. Decrees of pedigree.
It is a human trait to 'bother' about unfairness; again, in-built - no need for a Grand Ethics.

S: Clan-based groups don't need the principles spelled out. The polyglot, mosaic of western population does, exactly because they started from different base positions in the conquering nation.

M:

Well, that depends on the clan; some religious or spiritual types might, or might not, have principles spelled out. Either way, there will be a sense of fairness and justice. This leads to laws which may in themselves be wrong - given time and knowledge.

M: Tribes against tribes; the winner takes it all? Different systems founded on different ideas of what is right...
S: That's two different notions. Intra- and inter-tribal relations. You need an ethical framework for each. And there are no clear takes-all winners in tribal warfare: everybody loses more or less - far better to avoid, if you have a means of resolving territorial disputes, water-rights, etc. Most aboriginal peoples do/did have some mechanism for limiting conflict with their rivals.

M:

'Some mechanism' - what would that be, and how effective in protecting rights? I would say that most people agree that it is better to avoid warfare. How do we even reconcile fundamental religions within a Grand Ethical Code ?

S:Teach those core values to all the children.... viable community.
M: 'Viable': capable of working successfully. You think that the success of a community depends on teaching core values to 'all' children?
S: Just your own - by which of course, I mean the pool of youngsters from all the families in the community - they are all "our own". Let the other communities take care of their children's education.

M:

No; they are not all 'our own'. In a given modern community - say village - there are already divisions - economic, social, religious. Even within the same pool; some would drown out the others.
And this happens even with core values - or religious doctrine - being 'taught'.
As for letting other communities take care of their kids' education - which community, what size - one in India v Africa...even if teaching is allowed, what is taught and how. Can enlighten, or darken.

M: How many different communities are there in the world;
S: Most of them are not in direct contact with one another, so it doesn't matter how many. Only the ones right next to you need sufficient overlap in diplomatic protocol and economies to co-operate with you.

M:

Well, it does matter - if a Grand Ethical Theory is being proposed. Also, economic agreements do not mean some universal cooperation in what is the right thing to do.

S: Whether another tribe has the same moral code doesn't much matter, unless they're out to conquer yours. It matters whether you can communicate with your immediate neighbours. No international wars result from disagreement over values. What is necessary remains constant: food, water, land, liberty. Greed and power-lust causes violent conflict between nations far more often.

M:

Basic human needs remain constant, goes without saying. Conflicts today. Are all about disagreement over values. Usually based on interpretation of some religious ideal, Grand Ethic.
Quality of communication matters. Some talk with swords. Bloody and blooded men, still.

M: What would you consider a viable family or friendship? We can share values but that does not necessarily entail 'success', whatever that means...
S: What I consider a viable family or community is one that can get through loss, friction and hard times without destroying its members or their relationships. Too complicated to describe here, but I think you can find examples in your own experience. Nothing will necessarily insure success (what it means is long-term survival), but a clearly defined and generally understood ethical framework is a prerequisite.

M:

Having a strongly defined ethical framework might well be at the root of any problems in a community. Anyone who disagrees, or is different - who has a value-shift - is 'destroyed'.

S: What-all is wrong with the education system, and the difference between a learned man and a man with a degree, are subjects too large for this space. ( Bloody site's already logged me out once.)

M:

Perhaps; however, given that education seems key to the argument...

Thanks for the log-out warning; I never learn

Apologies for my last post - and the repetition of previous discussion.
It was the only way I could manage to give some kind of a response to Skip.
Thanks for all time and energy spent - real good of ya'

prof, any chance of you - or anyone - venturing forth to comment on the PN article:

Moral Laws of the Jungle

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=12323

Seems our differences are in pov rather than factual data. I have no use for religions of any kind and i'm pretty sure the current ones will disintegrate along with the political and economic structures of which they are the product and pillar. State society is a three-legged stool: administrative, clerical, military, upon which sits an aristocracy, whether we call them monarchs or venture capitalists.

This is not the place for the fine points of anthropology. (You might glance at this - readable overviewhttp://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-wor ... 0143124405
If you're right, teaching unified ethics to the pre-breakdown generation won't make any difference: everybody will just carry on like modern nationals until the ammunition runs out and there are few enough people left for the resources.
If i'm right, a secular moral standard independent of money-culture would be helpful in framing the legal systems of surviving colonies.

It makes not a scrap of difference who is right, because no such standard will be taught or implemented in our lifetime - at least, certainly not in mine and probably not in yours. The post-apocalyptic peoples will have to make up their own Golden Rule. Chances are, they'll come up with the same basics.

HexHammer wrote:

Skip wrote:I see no gaps or flaws. Looks like a sound skeleton

,
...the whole thing is nothing but pure babble! Specially the freedom section, it should be very commonly known that <freedom of speech> should be part of that.....

I sense some confusion in the air. It is what Peter Demerest has spoken of as "a perception gap."

You see, when I spoke of 'Freedom of Conscience' that includes free speech, as well as the expression of other human rights. It implies a free press, freedom to participate in elections without encumberances being thrown in your path. It also implies conscientious objection being honored without intimidation or torture - or any kind of cruel and unusual punishment.

Intrinsic freedom is: Freedom of Conscience. And that is a standard that a civilized society would observe, would practice.