Learning About Contemporary Thought in Ethics

Les Sleeth

One cannot always know when we “get it wrong.” If, for instance, you think that only science can reveal all revealable truths, then you will discount any sort of evidence that isn’t empiricial. The evidence you accept is only going to be sense data, because that is all empiricism relies on. As you proceed through life, you use empiricism to examine things, and it always reveals form, structure and mechanics (since that’s the only thing sense data reveals), and it does so quite flawlessly. What is your conclusion about the Truth? It is that the “Truth” is purely structural and mechanical form. But then, you haven’t looked at anything else have you?

Yet the person researching that way is going to tell the world the Truth when I personally know of something that is not revealed through the senses or empiricism. And just try to get someone fully committed to empiricism to look at that evidence objectively . . . impossible. But that won’t prevent them from preaching partially-researched theories on Truth to the world (my pet peeve, as you probably know).

Opinionated has a specific definition, and I was referring to that. People who blindly believe may not fit that formal definition, but I agree it is another kind of ignorance.

No, I wasn’t saying you are opinionated. My point wasn’t even really about being opinionated, it was about how one maintains one’s mind in the search for truth. Is it really open, or is it already leaning so far in some direction it colors and filters information? In other words, prior to and more important than the finding of Truth is the condition of consciousness to recognize it.

I think that is okay as a test strategy . . . if you listen. Yet you cannot just advocate a philosophical perspective and say “prove me wrong.” You are obligated to prove it correct and make your case logically. So far you haven’t done that or really responded to my objections to your philosophy, but instead keep repeating your relativistic position (I am dropping the ethical definition challenge as you said to do). I will summarize why I think you are wrong again, below.

You make a statement of the nature of reality without supporting it with evidence, and then go ahead and suggest a philosophy based on the original assumption. I challenge all your supporting assumptions and therefore cannot possibly agree with your conclusion until you justify your assumptions.

How do you know it is a world of objective indifference? You just think it is based on what you know. I know of things that tell me otherwise, so why should I abandon my model of reality for yours when you don’t give me reasons that yours better represents reality?

Then you say there is no absolute right or wrong, which I have to infer means you think there are no absolutes. In my last post I suggested another take on “right and wrong” borrowed from Chinese philosophy, that gets the meaning of right and wrong away from transcendent morality (i.e., religious); but you did not respond to that. Also unresponded to was my attempt to show you there do seem to be principles that cannot be circumvented without causing oneself or others damage, and so are universal (for humans at least), and certainly there are universally true physical principles. To me these facts contradict your assertion that there is no absolute basis from which to draw ethics.

Finally you say things just are, and that we cannot create an ethical code without accepting that. Sure we can, and have. And speaking personally, I like my ethical stance a lot better than yours. I cannot see a single advantage to defining the truth first as purely objective, believing there is nothing absolute, and then developing a set of ethics for every different situation I find myself in. I already know of principles that apply to everything, or at least to very large sets. Everytime I have discovered principles like that my understanding of reality has leaped ahead expotentially.

To be blunt, I think you are trying to develop a materialist philosophy for the world, but the world isn’t going to buy that yet. Materialists have a long way to go to prove creation is purely material. And as long as the world's most influential materialists refuse to apply anything but material-exposing investigative methods, I am not going to accept their view as complete. I want to hear a philosophy from someone who has looked at EVERYTHING, not just what supports their beliefs or inclinations.

I still have to get back to asking how you know the truth about right and wrong, how do you know the causes of our desires, and what qualifies you to wipe the slate clean? What have you achieved that would give me confidence in your recommendations? I have lived awhile, educated myself, meditated on the nature of reality and the meaning of life, and I still don’t feel qualified to recommend to the world what they should do.

I am not going to accept any philosophy without evidence, and if the philosophy is important enough, proof. I certainly am not going to replace my own ever-developing philosophy with one that conflicts with what I have experienced to be true. If I did that, I would be just another blind faith nitwit. So, AG, essentially I am saying you need to do more to make your case.

Another God

I don't mean to sound rude or anything like that, but I can't really reply to you rlast post, because as valid as much of it may have been, i fear it all misses the point. This thread has become a discussion about ethics and about right and wrong actions in particular instances and as such should be argued on that level. Your most recent reply though is entirely based on a metaphysical/epistemological level. It is true that these facts are important, but a discussion about ethics is not the place to address them. They are a discussion in their own right. I have my reasons for believing as I do, and if we really wanted to, we could sit down together and discuss it until we reach some resolution between our two views: But I doubt that either of us have the time (they are not easy questions to answer)

One more point though before i finish this post: One of the major intentions behind me exposing my view on ethics is simply to show that the ethic that our society has is (may be) based on entirely physical reality without need of objective right and wrong, without a god, without supernatural reference, and without reference to vague Absolutes. I am claiming to be able to justify our ethical system (or at least start the thought process down that path).

I have learnt one thing from this thread so far which is mor important than anything though: It is not necessary to start out on the strongest antagonism: This only causes people to react strongly, and grip their indoctrination more than ever before, fearing the loss of that which they know. In the future, I will start out with semi-neutral topics. Topics which don't invoke a strong natural reaction to deny the possibility.

Maybe another time, in another place, my points will be a little more amiably expressed, and will seem a little less threatening.

Les Sleeth

AG . . . I like the way you started out. Bold, up front, willing to stick your neck out. In the past I have tested my ideas just like that. I hope you don't get mushy on us, we need people strong enough to argue their position, and brave enough to risk being wrong or unable to explain themselves once in the thick of it.

Another God

Fear not, my hypothesis is just as strong and my conjectures just as bold. I just need to experiment in the art of persuasion. Not trickery, but learning how to make people realise the doubts they already have of the indoctrinated beliefs that run our society.

I feel a revolution coming on.

Zero

Unless it is me, right? Then it is ok to blast me.


Jeez, and this is a thread about ethics?!?

Another God

HAHAHAHA. LOL.
Sucks to be you!

[6)

Les Sleeth

I do get intense at times don't I . . . I will have to work on that. Sometimes it is just me trying squeeze out every last bit meaning from what I want to say. Other times it is due what I see as unfair debating tactics.

It isn't just you. Here for example I got frustrated with AG because I wanted him to address my objections to his philosophy. He didn't, so I got stronger and stronger in my objections. I came from different directions, tried various approaches, but he still just kept merely repeating his points. I don't see how one has a serious debate if contestants do not attempt to address each other's concerns, point for point.

I experience the same frustration with you, plus sometmes I don't feel you debate fairly. In the thread on materialist bias, for instance, it seems like you are being clever to win the debate rather than honestly debating for insight, no matter who provides it.

To me, philosophy and philosophical debate needs to be about learning and teaching, not winning or maintaining one's ego, or pushing one's beliefs. The sincere search for truth, and the willingness to accept it regardless of what golden calves it shatters, seems to be a rare quality these days.

I wouldn't want, however, anyone to feel stifled by the intensity of my challenges, which is why I wrote that last post to AG and you here.

Another God

roger that