Philosophy Now Forum

stevie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 7:05 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 9:39 pm

stevie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:22 am 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.

The technical term for an ethical theory that regards, "what is desired," as the ultimate principle is called hedonism.

Not necessarily because hedonism refers to desiring sensual pleasures. But there may be also goals desired that are not hedonism, goals like "peace of mind", "being more compassionate", "being a good father/mother", "being less egocentric", etc.

Colloquially hedonism simply means pleasure seeking, but, in philosophy, it's a little more complicated than that. I think it is safe to say, except for masochists, what one, "desires," is what pleases them or gives them pleasure rather than pain. You do not have to call that hedonism, but my point is to the fact that just because one, "desires," or wants something, it does not make it good.

You cannot say, "being a good father/mother," is a right objective without identifying what, "good," is. Nothing is just, "good." There must be some objective, purpose, or goal relative to which something is good.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:33 pm

stevie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 7:05 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 9:39 pm
The technical term for an ethical theory that regards, "what is desired," as the ultimate principle is called hedonism.

Not necessarily because hedonism refers to desiring sensual pleasures. But there may be also goals desired that are not hedonism, goals like "peace of mind", "being more compassionate", "being a good father/mother", "being less egocentric", etc.

Colloquially hedonism simply means pleasure seeking, but, in philosophy, it's a little more complicated than that. I think it is safe to say, except for masochists, what one, "desires," is what pleases them or gives them pleasure rather than pain. You do not have to call that hedonism, but my point is to the fact that just because one, "desires," or wants something, it does not make it good.

You cannot say, "being a good father/mother," is a right objective without identifying what, "good," is. Nothing is just, "good." There must be some objective, purpose, or goal relative to which something is good.

Of course "good" in this context of mine is necessarily part of the "guiding philosophy".

stevie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:27 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:33 pm

stevie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 7:05 am
Not necessarily because hedonism refers to desiring sensual pleasures. But there may be also goals desired that are not hedonism, goals like "peace of mind", "being more compassionate", "being a good father/mother", "being less egocentric", etc.

Colloquially hedonism simply means pleasure seeking, but, in philosophy, it's a little more complicated than that. I think it is safe to say, except for masochists, what one, "desires," is what pleases them or gives them pleasure rather than pain. You do not have to call that hedonism, but my point is to the fact that just because one, "desires," or wants something, it does not make it good.

You cannot say, "being a good father/mother," is a right objective without identifying what, "good," is. Nothing is just, "good." There must be some objective, purpose, or goal relative to which something is good.

Of course "good" in this context of mine is necessarily part of the "guiding philosophy".

So the question is, "what is good?"

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 4:37 pm

stevie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:27 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:33 pm

Colloquially hedonism simply means pleasure seeking, but, in philosophy, it's a little more complicated than that. I think it is safe to say, except for masochists, what one, "desires," is what pleases them or gives them pleasure rather than pain. You do not have to call that hedonism, but my point is to the fact that just because one, "desires," or wants something, it does not make it good.

You cannot say, "being a good father/mother," is a right objective without identifying what, "good," is. Nothing is just, "good." There must be some objective, purpose, or goal relative to which something is good.

Of course "good" in this context of mine is necessarily part of the "guiding philosophy".

So the question is, "what is good?"

As said that depends on the philosophy selected as "guiding philosophy".

stevie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:39 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 4:37 pm

stevie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:27 pm

Of course "good" in this context of mine is necessarily part of the "guiding philosophy".

So the question is, "what is good?"

As said that depends on the philosophy selected as "guiding philosophy".

If that's true, then "good" refers to nothing in particular at all. One can always select or devise another "philosophy" in which the values one calls "good" are called "bad" or "indifferent."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:46 pm

stevie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:39 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 4:37 pm
So the question is, "what is good?"

As said that depends on the philosophy selected as "guiding philosophy".

If that's true, then "good" refers to nothing in particular at all. One can always select or devise another "philosophy" in which the values one calls "good" are called "bad" or "indifferent."

If convention isn't of any value for you then you "can always select or devise another "philosophy" in which the values one calls "good" are called "bad" or "indifferent.""

stevie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:08 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:46 pm

stevie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:39 pm

As said that depends on the philosophy selected as "guiding philosophy".

If that's true, then "good" refers to nothing in particular at all. One can always select or devise another "philosophy" in which the values one calls "good" are called "bad" or "indifferent."

If convention isn't of any value for you then you "can always select or devise another "philosophy" in which the values one calls "good" are called "bad" or "indifferent.""

"Convention"? Convention just means "what's been done before, by some set of people." That may be a good thing, a bad thing, or an indifferent thing.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:10 pm

stevie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:08 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:46 pm
If that's true, then "good" refers to nothing in particular at all. One can always select or devise another "philosophy" in which the values one calls "good" are called "bad" or "indifferent."

If convention isn't of any value for you then you "can always select or devise another "philosophy" in which the values one calls "good" are called "bad" or "indifferent.""

"Convention"? Convention just means "what's been done before, by some set of people." That may be a good thing, a bad thing, or an indifferent thing.

Whether "good" or "bad" or "indifferent" depends on convention.

stevie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:15 am Whether "good" or "bad" or "indifferent" depends on convention.

It doesn't, actually. If "convention" is its only basis, then nothing at all is "good" or "bad." There is simply no objective reality to the terms, in that case.

Think of it this way: why should you care if Saudis call beating women with a stick "good" and eating pork "bad"? You're not a Saudi, are you? And even if you were, it would only be the force the Saudi authorities were able to exert on you that would make you comply, if you did at all. If they were unaware of your doings, or if they lacked power over you, you'd be free to treat women equally and munch as much bacon as you like.

But by the same token, if all that's behind your respecting of women is your own society's current convention, what's to stop that from changing? Or if your government bans pork imports, does that suddenly make the eating of your bacon sandwich immoral?

So "convention" is far to flimsy a basis on which to assert any claim of the "goodness" or "badness" of a thing, is it not?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:13 pm

stevie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:15 am Whether "good" or "bad" or "indifferent" depends on convention.

It doesn't, actually. If "convention" is its only basis, then nothing at all is "good" or "bad." There is simply no objective reality to the terms, in that case.

Yes, nothing at all is inherently (by nature) "good" or "bad". It's only conventions to call things "good" or "bad". However these conventions may serve a purpose which again is based on convention.

stevie wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:57 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:13 pm

stevie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:15 am Whether "good" or "bad" or "indifferent" depends on convention.

It doesn't, actually. If "convention" is its only basis, then nothing at all is "good" or "bad." There is simply no objective reality to the terms, in that case.

Yes, nothing at all is inherently (by nature) "good" or "bad".

What you should say instead is, "Nothing is 'good' or 'bad' at all." That's the implication of such a view. As you say...

It's only conventions to call things "good" or "bad".

Then rape is not "bad." Rights for women are not "good." Pedophilia is not "bad." Feeding orphans is not "good."

Really? You think that?

However these conventions may serve a purpose which again is based on convention.

Wait, wait...if that view is true, then there can be no "purpose" to be served. There are no "good" purposes.

There are also no "bad" ones, of course. So there is nothing which one ought to "serve" rather than anything else or nothing at all.

So no, they don't "serve a purpose." Rather, the terms "good" and "bad" would be mere lies some people use in order to trick others into falling into line with some "purpose" those people happen to have chosen to have...but they would be no more than propaganda, since no real facts correspond to those evaluative terms.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 6:04 am

stevie wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:57 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:13 pm
It doesn't, actually. If "convention" is its only basis, then nothing at all is "good" or "bad." There is simply no objective reality to the terms, in that case.

Yes, nothing at all is inherently (by nature) "good" or "bad".

What you should say instead is, "Nothing is 'good' or 'bad' at all." That's the implication of such a view. As you say...

Based on the differentiation "inherently (by nature)" vs "conventionally" that's not the implication.

san wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:43 pm I think Ethics is to solve Ethics, to solve Ethical Dilemmas.

The ultimate point of ethics is to justify who dies, who lives, and how the living should live.

Keyword: justify.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 12:42 pm

san wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:43 pm I think Ethics is to solve Ethics, to solve Ethical Dilemmas.

The ultimate point of ethics is to justify who dies, who lives, and how the living should live.

Keyword: justify.

You can't possibly "justify" anything unless something is "good." You can't "justify" a thing by showing it's "bad," and certainly not by showing it's merely a matter of indifference. One "justifies" with reference to a goal or value, and that goal or value must be presumed to be "right" or "good" or "legitimate" in some way. That, again, requires value judgments.

If there is no objective "good," then the keyword has no meaning.

stevie wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 6:09 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 6:04 am

stevie wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:57 am
Yes, nothing at all is inherently (by nature) "good" or "bad".

What you should say instead is, "Nothing is 'good' or 'bad' at all." That's the implication of such a view. As you say...

Based on the differentiation "inherently (by nature)" vs "conventionally" that's not the implication.

Actually, it is.

A "convention" is something that has no moral standing at all, by itself, because nothing has such a standing. So that's the implication.