Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:25 am**

Principle ethics, such as that of Kant's, emphasizes adherence to certain moral principles regardless of the consequences. On the other hand, Consequence ethics, such as that of Bentham's, emphasizes attainment of the best consequences, even if they violate the moral principles of principle ethics. Finally, virtue ethics, such as those of the ancients, emphasizes the development and practice of virtue. Principle and consequence ethics tend to have situational, specific, and narrow application; while virtue ethics tend to have general and broad application. Which ethical system to do you prefer?

Posted: **Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:52 pm**

egoism

-Imp

Posted: **Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:32 am**

Jori wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:25 am Which ethical system to do you prefer?

None of them.

They all have the same fault: they try to make ethics happen without substantive content. (To this list, we might add "Moral Developmentalism," as per Piaget and Kohlberg, for example.)

They're all taking as basic the mistaken assumption that you don't need to have any particular worldview, beliefs or commitments in order to "be morally informed." They're all seeking the "holy grail" of neutral moralizing. It doesn't exist.

That's one big reason why they all fail.

Posted: **Mon Oct 25, 2021 9:36 am**

Jori wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:25 am Principle ethics, such as that of Kant's, emphasizes adherence to certain moral principles regardless of the consequences. On the other hand, Consequence ethics, such as that of Bentham's, emphasizes attainment of the best consequences, even if they violate the moral principles of principle ethics. Finally, virtue ethics, such as those of the ancients, emphasizes the development and practice of virtue. Principle and consequence ethics tend to have situational, specific, and narrow application; while virtue ethics tend to have general and broad application. Which ethical system to do you prefer?

You misrepresented Kant's Morality & Ethics wrongly.

Kant's Morality & Ethics is not about the typical sort of adherence to moral principles with enforcement by some authority.

Kant's Morality & Ethics is a sort of Strategic System Ethics driven by objectives and consequences via an autonomous self-learning iterative system within the individual[s].
Because it is self-learning, there is no enforcement from external authorities.

Strategic: relating to the identification of long-term or overall aims and interests and the means of achieving them.

The question is how to going about developing and achieving the above autonomous self-learning iterative system within the individual[s].

Posted: **Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:10 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 9:36 am Kant's Morality & Ethics is a sort of Strategic System Ethics driven by objectives and consequences via an autonomous self-learning iterative system within the individual[s].
Because it is self-learning, there is no enforcement from external authorities.

So every individual will have to learn the consequences of shooting their neighbour in the face for themseves?

Posted: **Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:39 am**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:10 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 9:36 am Kant's Morality & Ethics is a sort of Strategic System Ethics driven by objectives and consequences via an autonomous self-learning iterative system within the individual[s].
Because it is self-learning, there is no enforcement from external authorities.
So every individual will have to learn the consequences of shooting their neighbour in the face for themseves?

There are at present approximately 7.9 billion humans on Earth.
How many and % would shoot their neighbor in the face?
If only 7.9 million individuals will do it, that is only 0.1% of the total or if 790,000 that's only 0.01%.
As such, the majority 99.9% of humans would have already 'learned' the consequences naturally and inherently.

Note Kant's

“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.
I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence.”
― Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason

The above imply the moral law is already 'programmed' and inherent in all humans and it will be spontaneous & natural that they will not shoot any one in the face.
For those whose moral law within is not activated, they will have to activate it via learning of the cause and effect[consequences].
The moral law within is managed by an algorithmic faculty and it comes in degrees.

Those whose moral law within [in the case of killing] is dormant or 'dead' will have to suffer whatever the consequences that will enable them to learn something iteratively [activate the moral faculty] or for those who are a-gone-case, then nothing at all.

Posted: **Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:49 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:39 am There are at present approximately 7.9 billion humans on Earth.
How many and % would shoot their neighbor in the face?

In 2021AD; or 2021BC?

In a country with effective law enforcement; or in a country without?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:39 am If only 7.9 million individuals will do it, that is only 0.1% of the total or if 790,000 that's only 0.01%.
As such, the majority 99.9% of humans would have already 'learned' the consequences naturally and inherently.

Now try this exact logic with (anti)vaccination.

How long do you think it will take for the lesson to be learned?
When do you think we can expect a population with 99.9% voluntary vaccination (without enforcement)?

How do yo think this "inherent learning" is going to take place?

Posted: **Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:32 am**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:39 am There are at present approximately 7.9 billion humans on Earth.
How many and % would shoot their neighbor in the face?
In 2021AD; or 2021BC?

In a country with effective law enforcement; or in a country without?

I stated its 7.9 billion humans on Earth, so that is pretty obvious.
The above data [with very reasonable accuracy] can be compiled from criminal records from each countries.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:39 am If only 7.9 million individuals will do it, that is only 0.1% of the total or if 790,000 that's only 0.01%.
As such, the majority 99.9% of humans would have already 'learned' the consequences naturally and inherently.
Now try this exact logic with (anti)vaccination.

How long do you think it will take for the lesson to be learned?
When do you think we can expect a population with 99.9% voluntary vaccination (without enforcement)?

How do yo think this "inherent learning" is going to take place?

The moral principles [as assumed to be justified] is, in the event of a declared pandemic every individual will spontaneously accept the proven and effective vaccination. This is the strategic moral objective which act as an ideal guide but not to be enforceable.

It is evident Covid 19 is recognized as a pandemic.
But the vaccination rate in countries ranges from >20% to >90%.

Note it is only if we institute a Strategic Moral System that we can generate the vaccination Gap [and other consequences] in each countries and use it to meet or increase to the ideal established.
Why there is a Gap need to be investigated for all critical and relevant factors and therefrom to take steps to continuously improve to close the Gap.

I believe the critical factor why there is big vaccination Gap and many had to be forced to be vaccinated by laws or threats, is because the pandemic was sudden and the vaccination program [was hurriedly created] so we have do not have the time and technology to provide a high confidence level that it is fool proof [note must be fool proof].

Note the case with vaccination for small pox, polio where the vaccination rates are more than 95% [subject to further confirmation] because the success rate is high with little side effects. As such there must be some sort of inherent learning in these people for the case of small-pox.

As such the authorities must push scientists to come up with fool proofs vaccination that the majority will spontaneously accept the vaccine.

In addition there will be other ideological factors [political, religious, etc.] why some people are not accepting any vaccination. This is a problem which must also be dealt with in the longer run.

When? I don't know. But I am optimistic when we have a machinery in place, i.e. Strategic Moral System with awareness of its SWOTs, it will progress gradually and continuously toward the establish moral ideals without the need for enforcement.

Posted: **Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:27 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:32 am
Jori wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:25 am Which ethical system to do you prefer?
None of them.

They all have the same fault: they try to make ethics happen without substantive content. (To this list, we might add "Moral Developmentalism," as per Piaget and Kohlberg, for example.)

They're all taking as basic the mistaken assumption that you don't need to have any particular worldview, beliefs or commitments in order to "be morally informed." They're all seeking the "holy grail" of neutral moralizing. It doesn't exist.

That's one big reason why they all fail.

"Neutral moralizing does not exist". True.

Down the ages we have trod
Many paths in search of God,
Seeking ever to define
the Eternal and Divine.

Some have seen eternal good
pictured best in Parenthood,
and a Being throned above
ruling over us in love.

There are others who proclaim
God and Nature are the same,
and the present Godhead own
where Creation's laws are known.

There are eyes which best can see
God within humanity,
and God's countenance there trace
written in the human face.

Where compassion is most found
is for some the hallowed ground,
and these paths they upward plod
teaching us that love is God.

Though the true we can't perceive
this at least we must believe,
what we take most earnestly
is our living Deity.

Our true God we there shall find
in what claims our heart and mind,
and our hidden thoughts enshrine
that which for us is Divine.

(Storey)

Posted: **Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:29 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:32 am I stated its 7.9 billion humans on Earth, so that is pretty obvious.
The above data [with very reasonable accuracy] can be compiled from criminal records from each countries.

Why are you working overtime to ignore the change-over-time trend?

Do you think we would've gotten here without laws?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:32 am The moral principles [as assumed to be justified] is, in the event of a declared pandemic every individual will spontaneously accept the proven and effective vaccination. This is the strategic moral objective which act as an ideal guide but not to be enforceable.

It is empirically demonstrable that individuals don't accept the proven and effective vaccination.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:32 am Why there is a Gap need to be investigated for all critical and relevant factors and therefrom to take steps to continuously improve to close the Gap.

Enforcement is one way to continuously improve and close the gap.

Why are you against this particular method?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:32 am As such the authorities must push scientists to come up with fool proofs vaccination that the majority will spontaneously accept the vaccine.

OK, what scientific proof would you spontaneously accept that demonstrates your stupidity?

Because you are stupid if you think the problem is that the "proof is not good enough"

Posted: **Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:21 am**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:32 am I stated its 7.9 billion humans on Earth, so that is pretty obvious.
The above data [with very reasonable accuracy] can be compiled from criminal records from each countries.
Why are you working overtime to ignore the change-over-time trend?

Do you think we would've gotten here without laws?

Did the successful insects and other species of animal got here with Laws?
The point is it would be ideal and more effective to progress without Laws than with enforceable Laws. Note the saying 'the Law is an Ass.' https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/the ... n-ass.html
But if Laws are necessary in the present for optimality sake, then it is necessary, however Laws do not belong to Morality & Ethics but rather obviously it is Politics.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:32 am The moral principles [as assumed to be justified] is, in the event of a declared pandemic every individual will spontaneously accept the proven and effective vaccination. This is the strategic moral objective which act as an ideal guide but not to be enforceable.
It is empirically demonstrable that individuals don't accept the proven and effective vaccination.

True.
If our ultimate objective is everyone must accept to be vaccinated, then we have to find the root causes and resolve them why the above happens.
As I had stated there are many reasons, e.g. technical, ideological, religious, etc. which must be investigated.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:32 am Why there is a Gap need to be investigated for all critical and relevant factors and therefrom to take steps to continuously improve to close the Gap.
Enforcement is one way to continuously improve and close the gap.

Why are you against this particular method?

I am against enforcement at all.
As I had stated above, if enforcement is OPTIMALLY necessary in our present phase of evolution, then we need it. But this is Politics [legislature, judiciary and the police] and not Morality which will be spontaneous.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:32 am As such the authorities must push scientists to come up with fool proofs vaccination that the majority will spontaneously accept the vaccine.
OK, what scientific proof would you spontaneously accept that demonstrates your stupidity?

You are the stupid one.
The requirement is the vaccination must be fool proof [period], i.e. the vaccination will prevent any covid19 infection in all cases without any side-effects at all.
Of course there would be a trial and error phase but eventually it must be fool proof such that the common person will readily accept it, except those with ideological , religious, stupidity, etc. reasons. Their resistance to vaccination can be dealt with other means.

Because you are stupid if you think the problem is that the "proof is not good enough"

It is not me.

It is an evident fact a high % of people are not accepting the vaccination because there loads of doubts with a lot of side effects where even fully vaccinated people has been infected and some died.
So to convince these large % of skeptics [not me], fool proof vaccination will certainly convince the majority to accept the vaccination just like those of small-pox, polio etc. [I mentioned these point, why you ignore them for consideration].

Btw, you are stupid to conflate Philosophy of Morality & Ethics with Philosophy of Politics.

Posted: **Wed Oct 27, 2021 4:54 pm**

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:27 am ...what we take most earnestly
is our living Deity....
Our true God we there shall find
in what claims our heart and mind,
and our hidden thoughts enshrine
that which for us is Divine.

As a description of how things are, this is not wrong. As a description of what is inevitable to human beings, it is also right. But as a description of how ethics are located, it's badly wrong.

For "what we take most earnestly" is not necessarily also "that which is most moral."

I don't think any of us can doubt the sincerity of many Nazis. Their worship of Hitler didn't merely verge on religious, but really was religious. Their lives were oriented to him entirely, and they were willing to die for him. But similarly devout are the Islamists who regard everybody non-Islamic as "Satan." And Humanists, who worship "the human" as if it were something divine and eternal, are just as religious. All these devote their "hearts and minds," and shape "their hidden thoughts" by some kind of thing they treat as if "Divine." It's their stand-in for God.

Worship is not optional for human beings; it's something everybody does. This is because we are teleological beings, creatures moving in a direction, toward a goal or purpose; and life's decisions cannot be oriented toward nothing. So there's always some "north star" toward which we orient our decisions...even when we don't tell ourselves what it is, it's there tacitly.

It cannot be escaped, even by the most egocentric or solipsistic human beings. When they worship only themselves, they treat themselves as ultimate, as the orientation point for their ethics, and as the locus of highest value. They worship themselves, as silly as that may sound.

All of the above have ethical systems that conflict with, say, classical liberalism or Judeo-Christian ethics. What we can see is the fact that people "enshrine" Hitler or Mohammed, or the human race, and proclaim them "divine" does not make them so.

The point is that ethics are always oriented to some sort of thing taken to be "ultimate" or "divine" (in an extended sense). But that move has, itself, to be justified by some line of legitimation that transcends their particularity; for it surely must be obvious by now that people can "divinize" a thing which orients them to wickedness, not goodness.

Posted: **Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:25 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 4:54 pm
Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:27 am ...what we take most earnestly
is our living Deity....
Our true God we there shall find
in what claims our heart and mind,
and our hidden thoughts enshrine
that which for us is Divine.
As a description of how things are, this is not wrong. As a description of what is inevitable to human beings, it is also right. But as a description of how ethics are located, it's badly wrong.

For "what we take most earnestly" is not necessarily also "that which is most moral."

I don't think any of us can doubt the sincerity of many Nazis. Their worship of Hitler didn't merely verge on religious, but really was religious. Their lives were oriented to him entirely, and they were willing to die for him. But similarly devout are the Islamists who regard everybody non-Islamic as "Satan." And Humanists, who worship "the human" as if it were something divine and eternal, are just as religious. All these devote their "hearts and minds," and shape "their hidden thoughts" by some kind of thing they treat as if "Divine." It's their stand-in for God.

Worship is not optional for human beings; it's something everybody does. This is because we are teleological beings, creatures moving in a direction, toward a goal or purpose; and life's decisions cannot be oriented toward nothing. So there's always some "north star" toward which we orient our decisions...even when we don't tell ourselves what it is, it's there tacitly.

It cannot be escaped, even by the most egocentric or solipsistic human beings. When they worship only themselves, they treat themselves as ultimate, as the orientation point for their ethics, and as the locus of highest value. They worship themselves, as silly as that may sound.

All of the above have ethical systems that conflict with, say, classical liberalism or Judeo-Christian ethics. What we can see is the fact that people "enshrine" Hitler or Mohammed, or the human race, and proclaim them "divine" does not make them so.

The point is that ethics are always oriented to some sort of thing taken to be "ultimate" or "divine" (in an extended sense). But that move has, itself, to be justified by some line of legitimation that transcends their particularity; for it surely must be obvious by now that people can "divinize" a thing which orients them to wickedness, not goodness.

There are three general " lines of legitimation " .
1. Authority
2. Reason
3. Romanticism.

Hitlerian Nazism is legitimated by Romanticism; that intuitions must be right. Unfortunately Nazis' Romanticism was lost in Authority the authority of the Fuhrer and his political party.

I'd choose an ethical balance between Reason and Romanticism which is at all times guarded about claims of Authority.

Posted: **Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:21 pm**

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:25 pm There are three general " lines of legitimation " .
1. Authority
2. Reason
3. Romanticism.

Who told you that?

Sorry: they were wrong. You can't get any legitimacy from Romanticism. And it's not clear how one derives it from reason, since reason itself needs to be legitimated as a basis for morality. As for authority, no human authority is capable of it.

Posted: **Thu Oct 28, 2021 11:53 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:21 pm
Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:25 pm There are three general " lines of legitimation " .
1. Authority
2. Reason
3. Romanticism.
Who told you that?

Sorry: they were wrong. You can't get any legitimacy from Romanticism. And it's not clear how one derives it from reason, since reason itself needs to be legitimated as a basis for morality. As for authority, no human authority is capable of it.

I was almost certain you would take your stance on Authority.

There is no ultimate means to legitimate reason or romanticism. Some of us simply get used to not knowing it all.

Philosophy Now Forum

Conflicting Ethical Systems

Conflicting Ethical Systems

Re: Conflicting Ethical Systems

Re: Conflicting Ethical Systems

Re: Conflicting Ethical Systems

Re: Conflicting Ethical Systems

Re: Conflicting Ethical Systems

Re: Conflicting Ethical Systems

Re: Conflicting Ethical Systems

Re: Conflicting Ethical Systems

Re: Conflicting Ethical Systems

Re: Conflicting Ethical Systems

Re: Conflicting Ethical Systems

Re: Conflicting Ethical Systems

Re: Conflicting Ethical Systems

Re: Conflicting Ethical Systems