Originally posted by Another God
Firstly, I am actually not attempting to explain what people should do. That is not my aim. My aim is to make people understand the true nature of things. I want people to see the world as it is, not as they want it to be. I believe that we MUST do this, because without a solid grasp of the truth, we have no basis on which to claim what we should do.
That is a decent goal, but how will you know when you have the entire “truth”? Life for me has been constantly discovering more and more aspects of reality; and prior to finding out about these aspects I had believed I knew how things worked. I fell for that mental fallacy over and over, until finally accepting there is no way to know how much you don’t know.
An analogy I like is how people say opinions are like [a certain posterior anatomical feature] . . . everybody has one. The implication is, opinions are equal. But not only are opinions not equal, the mind-set behind opinions can be quite different. The most frustrating people to talk to or deal with are opinionated people because they have “decided” how something is, case closed. But the mind that never closes the door on an opinion, which is always open to new information and therefore to adjusting the opinion, that mind is a joy to interact with.
So too is it with philosophy, but even more so because there is such a great amount of information waiting to be discovered about the nature of reality. You say you want people to “see the world as it is” and have “a solid grasp of the truth,” but by what standards will you evaluate them, and what experiences do you have which qualify you to evaluate? If you have not fully grasped “the true nature of things,” as you say, then how can you be certain of your philosophical recommendations which are supposedly designed to fit that nature?
Originally posted by Another God
. . . you must then also understand that these ethics which we work with our entire lives operate from a range of perspectives. That is, first and foremost, we have our own personal perspective which basically dictates everything that we want. Secondly, we have the various societies which we are in . . . Now, from the perspectives of these societies, there are things that it wants (and these wants come directly from the accumulated wants of the individuals within that society. . . .We individually want things, but when we partake in a society, we are also within an agreement amongst members of that society to obey the wants of the society at large (thus sometimes impeding our own personal wants). The goal though, is to have a society which meets the desires of everyone in it.
I want to reiterate my main problem with what you are saying, and that is I don’t believe you are talking primarily about ethics. Everybody already knows and accepts that people want and need stuff, and that we are all involved in a struggle to get it. But it doesn’t become an ethical issue
until what you do trying to get those needs and wants harms, or has the potential to harm, others.
All the concepts about setting things up to help oneself, or if speaking from a social perspective, to help people in general get what they want and need – all that is really a management issue. A good manager, as well as a good management system, organizes things to facillitate achieving goals. Everything from politics to family life depend on some type of management system to achieve goals, and the goals are decided by wants and needs. As Fliption astutely pointed out, the wiser one becomes the more one realizes the importance of one’s goals.
But what has any of that to do with ethics? I realize there is a casual use of the word, such as when someone talks about their “work ethic.” That actually refers to their work
habits; philosophical ethics have a different meaning.
I think ethical issues come up most often because of the competition people get into trying to meet wants and needs, and maybe that is what you are looking at. But then you say there is no “right” or “wrong,” again I have to disagree (discussed below).
Originally posted by Another God
You presented this example, as if to argue that there is a right and a wrong, and that it is our duty ti know them and follow them. Well, what I am all about is saying that there is no absolute right and wrong, but there is a contingent reality in which we live, and in each situation we find ourself, there is a right and wrong which achieves the ends we want. Now this example you present is perfect. Raising a child in a particular way "Works" better than raising it in another way.
What do you mean by "works"? Well, you mean that it raises a child which does what we want more so than a child which we raise the other way. (Or, in other words, it raises a child which fits into our society better than children raised the other way). So is it "Right" to raise a child with love etc? In our circumstance, yes certainly...but only because these are our circumstance, and because this is what we want. (we = Our state/country/culture..whatever)
You have not understood me completely there. I am not just saying it works only because it achieves some end – once again, that is a management thing. I am saying it “works” because the actions are in accord with the underlying nature of a human and reality. My point was to demonstrate that exists.
You cannot, no matter how clever you are, make a child happy and healthy under any circumstances you decide upon. And children are incredibly malleable in some ways. But if certain needs are not met, they will languish, and can become severely disturbed. Do you really think we just “want” a loving child? Yes a loving child is wonderful, but a loved child also thrives. If love wasn’t part of human nature, then why should the child thrive?
Some parents raise their kids to have sex with them, this actually goes on. Why not? One could create an isolated city, where everyone was raised to do it with everybody, set up the govermment and social systems to support it. After a couple of generations it becomes what everyone wants, and so is there anything “wrong” with it?
Well, do you know anybody raised that way? I do, and I can tell you I have never met anyone like that with healthy sexuality. People get so addicted they spend all their time chasing it, or they shut down completely, or they bury it and it comes out as some severe neurosis, and many of them seek sex as adults with children. And the reason is, a child needs to develop before being exposed to sex. You can train children to do it and even want it, but it doesn’t leave them healthy.
So your claim that there is no "Objective Right and Wrong" has a flaw. There is tons and tons of evidence that some things contribute to health and happiness, and other things contribute to sickness and unhappiness.
Originally posted by Another God
The whole point of my claim here, is simply to argue that people have a belief in some mythical "Objective Right and Wrong" which simply does not exist. It is true that there are certain things which are more frequently right (based on human genetic programming), and as such it is a good idea for us to figure out the human instincts and behaviours, and thus figure out the best ways of living based on these things...but it MUST be understood that these 'best ways of living' are simply choices based on the situation, and not absolutes.
If you mean as some moral on-high thing, okay. But that is not the only interpretation for right and wrong.
I like the Chinese interpretation better, that of the “Way.” It is to understand reality is a certain way, and that harmonizing with that way ensures the best success in life. There is a lot flexibility within the large principles of the Way, but one never, according to this idea, can go against the large principles without coming out the worse for it.
I believe you contradict yourself somewhat when on the one hand you acknowledge “there are certain things which are more frequently right (based on human genetic programming), and as such it is a good idea for us to figure out the human instincts and behaviours, and thus figure out the best ways of living based on these things” . . . and then you go on to say, “it MUST be understood that these 'best ways of living' are simply choices based on the situation, and not absolutes.”
What is improper in saying what is “right” are those things which best nurture and develop a human, and what is “wrong” is that which most damages a human? In that sense there are absolutes, and so following what is right is not merely a situational matter. I think you are on target to say there is situational correctness – mores, customs, traditions, laws, ettiquette, procedures -- they all address this. But to assert that
only the relative exists, and no absolute(s), I believe is beyond your personal experience to say so assuredly. Further, it is contradicted both by those elements of human nature which demand specific attention/treatment in order to thrive, as well as by many physical principles, such as their constancy in all situations, C, etc.
In my opinion, relativistic ethics alone gives us all the justification we need to take and do whatever the hell we want. You could argue that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing if there weren’t thousands of years of history to prove you wrong. It is precisely because we have discovered certain universals that the most powerful improvements to humanity have come about.
I would be appalled at your take on ethics. To me, you've defined exactly what it is that leads to a person becoming unethical.
