Philosophy Now Forum

Ethics always involves notions of how one living being 'ought' to relate to another. Therefore, if there were only one living being in the entire universe, then ethics would be unnecessary.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 2:16 am Ethics always involves notions of how one living being 'ought' to relate to another. Therefore, if there were only one living being in the entire universe, then ethics would be unnecessary.

And just about EVERY thing else would be unnecessary as well. But so what?

Ethics [Morality] is confined only to humans, not non-humans [living].

This is a ridiculous thought experiment, but if insist..
Even IF there is only one human, Ethics [as defined] is still applicable to oneself as a human.
Suicide is an ought-not-ness within Ethics.
It is immoral for one human to commit suicide.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 2:16 am Ethics always involves notions of how one living being 'ought' to relate to another. Therefore, if there were only one living being in the entire universe, then ethics would be unnecessary.

Robinson Crusoe problems go whichever way you want them to.

Your guy can have a duty to himself if you are wielding an ethics theory that deals in duties, or he can have Natural Rights in any form that doesn't arise from Other People (unless he can form a social contract with himself which is probably something that can be argued both ways).

Economists would put together some sort of producer and consumer economy for your one guy unless he lives in a vacuum.

Some philosophers would lose interest in ethics directly, but wonder if he even has a language to hold beliefs, desires and motivations in (taking BDM as the basic psychological ingredients of ethics)

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 2:16 am Ethics always involves notions of how one living being 'ought' to relate to another. Therefore, if there were only one living being in the entire universe, then ethics would be unnecessary.

I pretty much agree. Ethics and morality are entirely social in nature, as far as I can tell.

We're looking for the moral equivalent of the cogito right?
The event that is moral/imoral in world of such doubt that only one truth can be true.
A sin for a one handed man in a universe that contains nothing but himself.
I wank therefore I am naughty.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 10:18 am We're looking for the moral equivalent of the cogito right?
The event that is moral/imoral in world of such doubt that only one truth can be true.
A sin for a one handed man in a universe that contains nothing but himself.
I wank therefore I am naughty.

If you had a spare hand you could spank yourself as a form of accountability.

Alas.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 10:28 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 10:18 am We're looking for the moral equivalent of the cogito right?
The event that is moral/imoral in world of such doubt that only one truth can be true.
A sin for a one handed man in a universe that contains nothing but himself.
I wank therefore I am naughty.

If you had a spare hand you could spank yourself as a form of accountability.

Alas.

That's the next universe up the chain, it is the only one with moral balance.
Although its evil twin universe uses the other hand for a more delicate operation upon the rear.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 3:34 am Ethics [Morality] is confined only to humans, not non-humans [living].

This is a ridiculous thought experiment, but if insist..
Even IF there is only one human, Ethics [as defined] is still applicable to oneself as a human.
Suicide is an ought-not-ness within Ethics.
It is immoral for one human to commit suicide.

WHO CLAIMS that it IS IMMORAL for one human to commit suicide?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 1:06 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 3:34 am Ethics [Morality] is confined only to humans, not non-humans [living].

This is a ridiculous thought experiment, but if insist..
Even IF there is only one human, Ethics [as defined] is still applicable to oneself as a human.
Suicide is an ought-not-ness within Ethics.
It is immoral for one human to commit suicide.

WHO CLAIMS that it IS IMMORAL for one human to commit suicide?

VA has his own Alice in Wonderland way of looking at ethics. Prepare to leave logic behind if you talk to him.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 2:16 am Ethics always involves notions of how one living being 'ought' to relate to another.

I'm afraid your 'one essentially true thing' is false. It's possible to have an ethical system which doesn't involve 'ought' at all, it only involves good and bad. Such a system goes under the name Purely Evaluative Moral Realism, and it's discussed here: https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/30511/1 ... Thesis.pdf

CIN wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 1:43 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 2:16 am Ethics always involves notions of how one living being 'ought' to relate to another.

I'm afraid your 'one essentially true thing' is false. It's possible to have an ethical system which doesn't involve 'ought' at all, it only involves good and bad. Such a system goes under the name Purely Evaluative Moral Realism, and it's discussed here: https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/30511/1 ... Thesis.pdf

Is this to say that someone is "good" or "bad" purely for who or what she or he is or for reasons outside of his or her agency? For example a person born without feet might be bad by virtue of the "bad" trait s/he was endowed with that makes him or her unable to do good deeds that require walking?

CIN wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 1:43 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 2:16 am Ethics always involves notions of how one living being 'ought' to relate to another.

I'm afraid your 'one essentially true thing' is false. It's possible to have an ethical system which doesn't involve 'ought' at all, it only involves good and bad. Such a system goes under the name Purely Evaluative Moral Realism, and it's discussed here: https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/30511/1 ... Thesis.pdf

True/false. Good/bad. Yes/No. 1/0.

Still just binary categories.

Effectively one and the same problem.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 10:18 am We're looking for the moral equivalent of the cogito right?

The OP as worded states "one" thing that is (so far) "essentially true" about ethics. I don't pretend to know that there aren't other things that might be "essentially" true about ethics. And perhaps even the one thing I mention can be demonstrated not to be essential.

Maybe think of it as crowd sourcing funamentals of ethics. Whether or not those fundamentals may lead to further conclusions or not is perhaps equally up for debate as well. But it might be a good starting point for understanding ethics, it seems to me.

CIN wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 1:32 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 1:06 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 3:34 am Ethics [Morality] is confined only to humans, not non-humans [living].

This is a ridiculous thought experiment, but if insist..
Even IF there is only one human, Ethics [as defined] is still applicable to oneself as a human.
Suicide is an ought-not-ness within Ethics.
It is immoral for one human to commit suicide.

WHO CLAIMS that it IS IMMORAL for one human to commit suicide?

VA has his own Alice in Wonderland way of looking at ethics. Prepare to leave logic behind if you talk to him.

I agree. I learned 'this' after the first two or three responses from "veritas aequitas".

But I just keep asking these type of questions, knowing that 'it' will NOT respond, to show how people like this one will just 'blurt out' and express what they assume or believe is true, but which they actually have absolutely NO proof AT ALL for.

That 'it' can NOT or will NOT answer the questions I ask shows and proves just how Truly CLOSED, and also REALLY BLIND, this one REALLY IS.