Learning About Contemporary Thought in Ethics

[Another God]

Setting aside the important issue of deciding what our nature is (I’m pretty sure I believe there’s more to it than you), would you agree we can at least say that those things we do which are most aligned with our nature should work best in the human realm? If, for instance, you raise a child with emotional abuse and beatings, does that “work” as well as raising a child with love and guidance? It has been very clearly demonstrated which works better, and that means humans do have certain characteristics hard-wired into them.

I realized that this says something very important within my conception of ethics.

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)


I have to say it again. 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.

People must accept that some people want to choose different 'rights' in their society, and follow them.




From this, there are remaining considerations of "Do we want to be in a propserous society?" or "Do we want to be in a society which suits us perfectly"? And more difficultly: "Is it possible, to have a society which suits us perfectly, and is prosperous."

Chances are the third option is not possible...and so if we try to live in a society which suits us to some degree, it will be less prosperous and so we won't get everything we want...which in turn will result in it no longer quite suiting us as much as we want. (in most circumstances)(some people like living of very little food and no material possesions etc)

Which means most of us should want to live in a prosperous society. And to do this, we simply have to face up to the fact that we will have to give up many of our personal desires.

Now comes the trick of balancing those factors, figuring out what type of society would be the most prosporous while still sitting in line with the majority of peoples desires and figuring how big the society will need to be to achieve this.

So many factors, so much consideration. No wonder no one has figured it out yet.

 

[Another God]

I had a thought the other day too. Maybe all politicians get into politics wanting to help society, wanting to make their society be the perfect society...wanting it to be prosperous, and suit the needs of all of the people in it all at once. But upon reaching a position where it is within their ability to do so, they quickly learn that not only is it not possible to achieve such an ends, but it impossible to even make any sort of agreement on anyone simple fact. Everyone is different, and you can't please anyone, let alone everyone.

In the face of such adversity, they all give up on the society (its a project largely doomed from the beginning anyway), and quickly start concentrating on fulfilling their own personal desires. At least that's a task they can take care of.

Do you blame them?

 

[Les Sleeth]

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.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
That is a decent goal, but how will you know when you have the entire “truth”?

I won't. We never know "The Truth"...but we sure as hell can know when we get it wrong can't we? This pretty much how science works. Falsification. Make a bold hypothesis, and then try to find where it is wrong. So here I am, making a bold hypothesis, and looking for errors in it (its hard to find errors in your own theory, so you present it to other people, and ask them to convince you that you are wrong, or else accept your theory.)

But to decide that Because we can never know the truth is reason enough to stop looking for it...is contrary to Philosophy, to Science, and to my own nature. Truth is an ideal of mine which is very important to me.

The most frustrating people to talk to or deal with are opinionated people because they have “decided” how something is, case closed.

I disagree with the opinionated thing, but only in terms of the definition of "Opinion"... It frustrates me that "Opinionated" has an immediate negative context, while someone who has "Beliefs" has a positive/neutral context. Think about it, if you meet someone who has say religious beliefs, or beliefs about telekenisis etc, then "Thats OK...because that is their belief, and so we won't dispute that." But an opinion...now that is something which in reality, is just a temporarily accepted truth.

That is my take on beliefs and opinions anyway

But that isn't really important here unless you feel that I am acting in a way which is like the typical take on "opinionated"? Personally, my philosophy is that my job is only to present my beliefs in a hope that someone can show me where I am incorrect. I am not so much trying to convince you that I am right, as much as trying to find out where I am wrong, and at the same time denying any of these attempts which I believe aren't valid.

But if you think I have done anything which is contrary to this philosophy, please tell me.

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.

OK, how about we accept that my initial aim is not to define ethics then. I'll accept that so that we stop debating this, and instead we will state that my initial aim is to describe my understanding of how the world is. What I am describing is how I believe it is, and I believe these things because of various reasons, examples given etc (I have explained why already), and now it is up to you and anyone else who feels interested in this topic to tell me why it is that you deny the truth in my beliefs. (You don't have to do this, but if you are like me, then you would be interested in knowing the truth, and if someone claims to perhaps have an idea of what it is, then you would inspect their words and see where they have made errors or else accept their claims.)

And so, initially I am not talking about ethics persay (where ethics describes how we should live) but I am talking about the nature of the world in which we humans find ourselves. The world of Objective indifference. There is no absolute right and wrong. There is no right to life. Things just ARE.

And I believe that you CANNOT create an ethical code without accepting this.

Let me state this more formally: "Before an ethical system can be established, the truth must be known." ie: If you don't know the truth, then any ethics that you try to create will only represent your beliefs, your situation, your society, the trends in your culture etc.
Of course this leads to a whole series of Epistemological arguments about what is really known etc, but that is for the other million philosophers out there, I've decided to concentrate on this part, and that's my choice.

And so, as part of my contribution to the human efforts towards a true universal code, I am trying to do my part by wiping the slate clean, removing all of the misconceptions about right and wrong, removing the lies, and pointing people towards the real causes of our desires/causes for/of ethics.



More to follow.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Another God We never know "The Truth"...but we sure as hell can know when we get it wrong can't we? . . . But to decide that Because we can never know the truth is reason enough to stop looking for it...is contrary to Philosophy, to Science, and to my own nature. Truth is an ideal of mine which is very important to me.

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).

Originally posted by Another God It frustrates me that "Opinionated" has an immediate negative context, while someone who has "Beliefs" has a positive/neutral context. Think about it, if you meet someone who has say religious beliefs, or beliefs about telekenisis etc, then "Thats OK...because that is their belief, and so we won't dispute that." But an opinion...now that is something which in reality, is just a temporarily accepted truth. . . . But that isn't really important here unless you feel that I am acting in a way which is like the typical take on "opinionated"?

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.

Originally posted by Another God Personally, my philosophy is that my job is only to present my beliefs in a hope that someone can show me where I am incorrect. I am not so much trying to convince you that I am right, as much as trying to find out where I am wrong, and at the same time denying any of these attempts which I believe aren't valid. . . . But if you think I have done anything which is contrary to this philosophy, please tell me.

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.

Originally posted by Another God . . . my initial aim is to describe my understanding of how the world is . . . initially I am not talking about ethics persay (where ethics describes how we should live) but I am talking about the nature of the world in which we humans find ourselves. The world of Objective indifference. There is no absolute right and wrong. There is no right to life. Things just ARE. And I believe that you CANNOT create an ethical code without accepting this. Let me state this more formally: "Before an ethical system can be established, the truth must be known." ie: If you don't know the truth, then any ethics that you try to create will only represent your beliefs, your situation, your society, the trends in your culture etc.

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.

Originally posted by Another God And so, as part of my contribution to the human efforts towards a true universal code, I am trying to do my part by wiping the slate clean, removing all of the misconceptions about right and wrong, removing the lies, and pointing people towards the real causes of our desires/causes for/of ethics.

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 learned 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]

Originally posted by Another God
I have learned 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.

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 realize the doubts they already have of the indoctrinated beliefs that run our society.

I feel a revolution coming on.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW 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.

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]

Originally posted by Zero
Unless it is me, right? Then it is ok to blast me.
Jeez, and this is a thread about ethics?!?

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