Page 1 of 2
Purpose and Ethics
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2022 9:01 am
by RWStanding
Purpose and Ethics
As individuals we need purpose or interests in order to make life satisfying.
But that purpose has no essential ethical significance, or virtue, other than the very basic ethic of survivalism.
This applies to communities and nations and humanity as a whole.
Basic survivalism is only concerned for the survival of the species and minimal community, and will allow the redundant to die for the sake of the whole.
It is only at this point that ethics really arise.
If we are not hermits and live in a community, then that community with each of us have at least a nominal choice.
We can submit blindly to the authority of the community, and if everyone does so, then we have some form of tyranny.
If we seek simple personal freedom from that tyranny, then we have some form of anarchism, in which society merely represents aggregates of individual will, limited only by equality with others.
Thirdly, we may seek with others, a corporate freedom, altruistic, and holistic, which embraces all life.
If then we create a holistic society, and holistic groups, we are implicitly concerned with positive goods and ideals. But with tolerance of differing views that have the same moral direction. While avoiding anarchistic hedonism and globalisation and the view that everything is perfect.
Re: Purpose and Ethics
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2022 6:29 am
by Veritas Aequitas
RWStanding wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 9:01 am
Purpose and Ethics
As individuals we need purpose or interests in order to make life satisfying.
But that purpose has no essential ethical significance, or virtue, other than the very basic ethic of survivalism.
This applies to communities and nations and humanity as a whole.
Basic survivalism is only concerned for the survival of the species and minimal community, and will allow the redundant to die for the sake of the whole.
It is only at this point that ethics really arise.
...
If then we create a holistic society, and holistic groups, we are implicitly concerned with positive goods and ideals. But with tolerance of differing views that have the same moral direction. While avoiding anarchistic hedonism and globalisation and the view that everything is perfect.
I agree with your above.
However we need an efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics to manage for holistic results as represented below;
Within the "P" box we need effective moral principles and strategies.
The 'how' of this will require sophisticated discussion in Morality and Ethics section of this forum.
Re: Purpose and Ethics
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2022 8:41 pm
by promethean75
I propose an axiological hedonism as the FSK, and a hedonic calculus as our analytical method of inquiry.
Discuss.
Re: Purpose and Ethics
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2022 9:33 pm
by RCSaunders
RWStanding wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 9:01 am
Purpose and Ethics
As individuals we need purpose or interests in order to make life satisfying.
But that purpose has no essential ethical significance, or virtue, other than the very basic ethic of survivalism.
One's own life and successful enjoyment of it is the ultimate purpose from which all values are derived. It is not, "survival," as in the, "perpetuation of protoplasm," but living successfully as a human being that is the purpose of every individual's life.
Everything else is some kind of collectivist-altruistic bull-crap. No society has any value in itself.
Re: Purpose and Ethics
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 12:18 am
by Immanuel Can
promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 8:41 pm
I propose an axiological hedonism as the FSK, and a hedonic calculus as our analytical method of inquiry.
Discuss.
From where does the
obligatory nature of that paradigm come?
In other words, what makes calculating that way (and not some other way or no way at all) the "right" way, or the way we owe our moral credence and practical allegiance?
Re: Purpose and Ethics
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 1:02 am
by promethean75
Man fears and dreads visceral pain even before the wrath of god, disrepute by his neighbor, and complete loss of all his property, mobility and freedom.
The irreducibility of this basic truth is enough to establish it as the first premise of an ethics. All other premises are dubious, and therefore no foundation upon which to build.
We conclude, then, that it is this striving for the absence of pain and the presence of pleasure, that so drives men in their pursuit of happiness and fulfilment.
Verily, we deliver our platform to this symposium of ethicists.
Re: Purpose and Ethics
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 4:09 am
by Immanuel Can
promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 1:02 am
Man fears and dreads visceral pain...
That's actually not true. There are plenty of "pains" men and women are willing to put up with, either because it's counterbalanced by something they want more, or because of a principle they believe is worth suffering or even dying for.
Work is pain. Childbirth is pain. Athletics are pain. Growth is pain. Learning is pain. Love causes pain. Having any convinctions at all occasions pain. Any achievement people value is accompanied by pain. If they fear pain more than anything, then none of these things would ever be done.
So that's just clearly false. "Avoiding pain" cannot possibly be the first principle of ethics. Not enough people regard it as even impressive. But even if they did, that would only show that pain exists. It would not show that good things are associated with pleasure and bad ones with pain, or that a person is bound by duty, obligation, or wisdom to seek freedom from pain over all the other things people value.
Re: Purpose and Ethics
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 5:06 am
by Veritas Aequitas
promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 8:41 pm
I propose an axiological hedonism as the FSK, and a hedonic calculus as our analytical method of inquiry.
Discuss.
The FSK in this case is the Utilitarianism FSK.
Hedonic calculus is one strategy used within that FSK.
But note a
sample of its criticisms,
However, many of our moral decisions do not have predictable or measurable outcomes at all. It is unclear what counts as pleasure or how to equate pleasure and pain. There are three key points here:
Unpredictable - You can't know the future, and things rarely turn out as we think they will. It cannot be right to judge an action right or wrong based on outcomes that are down to chance.
Incalculable - Even if you knew exactly what would happen, it is impossible to add up all of the pain and pleasure resulting from a course of action. There's simply too much to calculate
Immeasurable - A more fundamental flaw. Even with the simplest event - choosing whether to buy a toy or a magazine for a child - it is impossible to decide on a value to give for happiness. Is the joy of reading a magazine more intense than the joy of playing with a toy? Pleasure cannot be measured, so the idea of adding it all up doesn't work.
There is also something instinctively wrong with judging the morality of an action by it’s outcome – a person motivated solely by greed or revenge might choose a course of action that happens to make the greatest number of people happy. Does this make him a good person? Even more concerning is the possibility of sadists whose pleasure at torturing others is so great that this in itself makes their actions good. The theory seems to support the exploitation and abuse of minority groups if it pleases the ruling majority.
How do you decide whether white-water rafting is a higher-level pleasure than listening to Beethoven played live or eating an Indian takeaway? Mills theory seeks to reduce everything to a consideration of happiness, when moral decisions are actually a lot more complicated than that. It also still allows for great injustices to be carried out just as long as the greatest good is served.
http://www.rsrevision.com/images/calvin_happy2.jpg
http://www.rsrevision.com/Alevel/ethics ... icisms.htm
Re: Purpose and Ethics
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 4:04 pm
by promethean75
No theory of ethics is without criticism, but if you can advance one that gets away from Hume's guillotine and Moore's naturalistic fallacy, you're in there like swimwear. And my rational hedonism is in there. Deontological and virtue based ethics are dead, so all you have left to work with is utilitarianism and consequentialism, even counting their flaws. Bro that I'm even in this thread is a miracle cuz imma nihilist. I'm tryna make shit work that ain't workable. You cannot imagine the agony I must feel while watching philosophers trying to discuss morality.
"Work is pain. Childbirth is pain. Athletics are pain. Growth is pain. Learning is pain. Love causes pain. Having any convinctions at all occasions pain. Any achievement people value is accompanied by pain. If they fear pain more than anything, then none of these things would ever be done."
To these people who 'suffer' such, we ask
5zvszv.jpg
Re: Purpose and Ethics
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 4:12 pm
by Immanuel Can
promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 4:04 pm
No theory of ethics is without criticism, but if you can advance one that gets away from Hume's guillotine and Moore's naturalistic fallacy, you're in there like swimwear.
Unfortunately for that, nobody's been able to do that...at least, not without subscribing to some particular ontological assumptions first. There is no neutral, universal, secular basis for ethics so far. And Hedonism has been roundly debunked as any candidate for that role. There isn't any intrinsic reason to think that "pleasure" is a universal good or "pain" a universal evil, or that anybody has a neutral, universal duty to care about either.
Bro that I'm even in this thread is a miracle cuz imma nihilist.
Nihilism is indeed the logical outcome of any such attempt. One has to end up concluding there is and can be no such basis...that is, so long as one insists on remaining uncommitted to any particular ontology.
You cannot imagine the agony I must feel while watching philosophers trying to discuss morality.
Sure I can. Not just you, but the whole field of ethics is agnoized by its determination to find a neutral, secular, universal moral basis. It's just never been able to do it.
Re: Purpose and Ethics
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 7:40 pm
by promethean75
"There isn't any intrinsic reason to think that "pleasure" is a universal good or "pain" a universal evil, or that anybody has a neutral, universal duty to care about either."
Ah but there is... except for the 'duty' part, which is more philosophically difficult to contend with.
You'd be hard pressed to prove that anything people do is not motivated by the desire to experience pleasure and avoid pain; excluding masochists who aren't in real pain cuz it ain't unbearable, and small cost/benefit scenarios where temporary pain must be endured to acquire some kind of pleasure.
And where mental activity is called psychologically consonant or dissonant, you have the generation of emotions that are classified as such according to their relationship to the nervous system, particularly the reward centers of the brain, as well as hormonal activity.
Epicurus mighta started this, but Spinoza finished it. Every action of a living thing is toward the preservation and enhancement of its power, which it experiences as joy, which is in turn a pleasure.
Even the sacrificial acts of species that practice kin-altruism are doing this. For lower animals, it is instinctual. For higher animals, psychologically motivated. The parent that rushes into the burning building to save its child, does so because the life of the child (or the knowledge of it) gives them more joy then their own life. Same can be said of strangers who'd do the same.
As strange and mysterious as these mechanisms and behaviors might be, this mysteriousness is no argument against them. It's all motivated by the pleasure/power principle.
Re: Purpose and Ethics
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 9:33 pm
by Immanuel Can
promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 7:40 pm
You'd be hard pressed to prove that anything people do is not motivated by the desire to experience pleasure and avoid pain;
Actually, it was incredibly easy. And I gave you particular examples: athletes, soldiers, rescuers and nurses, women who give birth, and almost anybody who achieves anything.
Every action of a living thing is toward the preservation and enhancement of its power,
No, that's a delusion. There are plenty of people who sacrifice themselves for others.
Now, I know the old rejoinder: "they're only doing it for their own self-interest."
Yeah, right.
I always feel like people who resort to that sort of reductionism are guilty of having crabbed, sorry little lives. They seem not to know a single person who isn't intrinsically selfish. That's pretty sad.
The parent that rushes into the burning building to save its child, does so because the life of the child (or the knowledge of it) gives them more joy then their own life. Same can be said of strangers who'd do the same.
You'd be hard pressed to make that case for martyrs, or for people who sacrifice their lives for the freedom of others. After all, death ends all "pleasures," from a secular perspective.
So no: what you're claiming is far from obvious. In fact, it's pretty obviously untrue.
Re: Purpose and Ethics
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:35 am
by Veritas Aequitas
promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 4:04 pm
No theory of ethics is without criticism, but if you can advance one that gets away from Hume's guillotine and Moore's naturalistic fallacy, you're in there like swimwear. And my rational hedonism is in there. Deontological and virtue based ethics are dead, so all you have left to work with is utilitarianism and consequentialism, even counting their flaws. Bro that I'm even in this thread is a miracle cuz imma nihilist. I'm tryna make shit work that ain't workable. You cannot imagine the agony I must feel while watching philosophers trying to discuss morality.
There are criticisms thrown at every theory there is.
The question is whether the criticisms are valid, sound, reasonable and rational.
There are loads of criticisms and many are rational counters to Hume's guillotine and Moore's naturalistic fallacy [both are based on shortsightedness].
There are new views, perspectives and approaches to Moral Theory which are reasonable and possibly workable other than utilitarianism and consequentialism based on the neurosciences, psychology, sociology, evolutionary psychology, system-based, etc.
"Work is pain. Childbirth is pain. Athletics are pain. Growth is pain. Learning is pain. Love causes pain. Having any convinctions at all occasions pain. Any achievement people value is accompanied by pain. If they fear pain more than anything, then none of these things would ever be done."
To these people who 'suffer' such, we ask
Note Buddhism's "
Life [a critical aspect]
is sufferings & pains [dukkha]."
The Four Noble Truths present the origin, the possibility of solutions, and the solutions [the Noble 8Fold Path] to manage and modulate life sufferings and pains which will then enable 'happiness' to emerge.
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193
Re: Purpose and Ethics
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:45 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 4:12 pm
promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 4:04 pm
No theory of ethics is without criticism, but if you can advance one that gets away from Hume's guillotine and Moore's naturalistic fallacy, you're in there like swimwear.
Unfortunately for that, nobody's been able to do that...at least, not without subscribing to some particular ontological assumptions first. There is no neutral, universal, secular basis for ethics so far.
..
I have argued here
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777
that are objective moral principles that can ground morality.
As for your supposedly Divine moral commands, those are merely pseudo-moral maxims conditioned upon threat of Hellfire and promise of heaven.
In addition such pseudo-morality is grounded on an illusory, delusional and impossible-to-real entity.
God is an Impossibility to be real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
Re: Purpose and Ethics
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2022 4:47 pm
by Immanuel Can
You've argued
incorrectly, as also here:
A better argument for both is needed.