Ethics?
Pages
| Author | Topic: Ethics? |
|---|---|
|
Babelicious
Member # 3149
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 11:49
Profile
Homepage
Some would say yes. I had a little spat with someone on Slashdot who firmly believes it's within his right to shoot anyone who trespasses on his property. That sort of person would give your hypothetical sniper a high five. On the other hand, most people seem to feel that death is not an appropriate punishment for theft. More specifically, they don't want to raise the penalty for themselves or their loved ones. If one person can be shot for stealing, my hypothetical poor, misguided little nephew could be too. "Justice" is itself a selfish concept. You want penalties to fit the crimes for your own reasons: because you'd want someone who wronged you or your loved ones to be appropriately punished, and because you'd want yourself or your loved ones to be treated with mercy in a similar situation. I'd argue that human behavior is governed almost entirely by what brings the actor pleasure. Do volunteers receive no pleasure from their work? Do philanthropists receive no pleasure from their donations? Remember, there's pleasure in doing what you think is right. What you think is right is itself derived from the basic desire to be accepted. People tend to form their moral codes around the expectations of others. This is all basic psychology and sociology, and it would behoove philosophers to take at least a glance at science every once in a while. -------------------- I've got a pyg in a poke. Posts: 999 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 4267
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 12:07
Profile
Homepage
"Morality" In its basest form did not come from a doctrine, or a god, or a system. It came from the inate ability of sentient life to empathize. Long before Homo Sapiens even had the mental clout to envision a diety of any kind, they could look at another's misfortune, and feel, genuinely "I really don't want that to happen to me" simply put, what is "wrong" is what hurts... Thought there are some exceptions, not even the most twisted of masochists will take pleasure from the murder of their family, having their welfare and shelter taken from them, or other such things. The basic sense of "right" and "wrong" comes from being able to feel someone else' misfortune, or at the very least imagine what it would be like to be them, and deciding that its not something you want for yourself or others. Morality comes from deep inside of us, some psychological aspect, not from a book or a god. If some etherial entity such as a deity, or code of honor is the ONLY thing keeping you from unleashing unadulterated havoc on the world, you are a supreme threat to the safety of others, without the ability to empathize there is nothing to stop you when you are left solely to your own devices. -------------------- If everyone would just forgive someone else, so much pain would be taken off of all of our shoulders... but as tenderness is a virtue it is also a failing, any who would do such a thing usually fall to those who wouldn't. - Ezrah Posts: 50 | Registered: Thursday, April 15 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4256
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 12:16
Profile
quote:I have a hard time with this view. It is possible to take a twisted pleasure in even the most horible of things. It may not be pleasure as you define it(however that is) but people can get pleasure from. But what you saying sounds like people just like to get warm fuzzy feelings inside so they help other people. This sounds something like a little bit of what djur just said. quote:Perhaps you are suggesting that this is present because humans "evolved" to work together as a unit so that they could survive. And this is someone who is more into the "sciences" taking a quick peek back into "philosophy". [ Friday, October 08, 2004 12:43: Message edited by: m's devotee ] Posts: 564 | Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 12:17
Profile
Homepage
Toast, unless every one of your beliefs are held by the majority of people out there, you yourself are in violation somehow. Does that make you an immoral bastard? And really, saying "everyone knows right and wrong" is an uphill battle at best: Because honestly, you'd be nuts to say that all of the world agrees or disagrees with the Iraqi war, in spite of both sides saying that they should. I expect you to perform fellatio to the moral majority hereafter. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 15:30
Profile
There is the conception of the middle way in buddhism-- that going to extremes in ascetism or pleasure lead one away from enlightenment. Moral absolutism in either direction is unacceptable. In a similar manner in stoicism moderation in all action is pushed. Taking extreme views destroys ones equilibrium and ability to think clearly. We are talking about ethical decisions here. The example of the Iraq war is an interesting one. The point is not about whether or not I support or do not support the Iraq war. The point is on how I've made my ethical decision. I cannot accept a simplistic view that might come from moral absolutism an example might be -- God told me what is right to do for America we should kill all muslims. Nor will I accept someone saying in a morally relativistic way-- Islamic terrorists have an equally valid worldview as my own so we should leave them alone. Aquinas talked about how he combined faith with reason. What he could not work through with reason he did not accept in faith. People have lost a sense of balance in discussing the issues. They speak from the heart but can't give a clear coherent logical argument about why they believe what they do. Polarized people are very easy to control, lie to and manipulate. I do not support the war in Iraq. I did suport the war in Afghanistan-- they did not finish the job. Cool it TM. Your posture of my interests are too esoteric for other people to understand is too tempting to stick pins in. Make a date with Kropotkin and don't forget to bring your raincoat. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2820
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 17:07
Profile
If this discussion is about what is right and wrong, then the only reasonable answer is "it depends." There are no real universal morals because there are so many people. Even if we exclude the ascetics, extremists, outcast, and mentally ill, there will still be some beliefs that will be left out. If there is truly an Absolute in the universe, that does not mean there must be an exact system of morals. The judging entity might be a rigid, emotionless decider, but to be without emotion is to be without compassion and ethical mercy. As human beings, we wish malevolence upon our enemies and good for ourselves and loved ones. Of course, we only love to either be loved or to obtain some reward. If we did not want to live in working society, then there would not be a very good set of morals. Perhaps the only reason why we do good onto others is really because we want the same done onto ourselves. But that is an oversimplification in my opinion. -------------------- What do I put here? -Garrison Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Friday, October 8 2004 20:40
Profile
Homepage
The Aztecs believed that the ideal form of government was a theocratic monarchy, that the sun was actually a god which required the blood of thousands to have the strength to rise every morning, and that it was socially essential to engage in constant war to capture thousands of captives and sacrifice them to the aforementioned sun-god. If you have to make a non-empirical system of morality, base it on people, not dogma. Morality based on dogma comes out retarded and wrong 99.99% of the time. -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
|
written Saturday, October 9 2004 14:22
Profile
quote:I'm vigorously trying to avoid reading Plato right now. But if you think Xenophon makes more sense, you've obviously never read Oeconomicus. Nothing but an exercise in anal retentiveness with a hefty dose of misogyny chucked in. Personally, I would take the view that objectively speaking, there is no absolute right or wrong. Therefore, objectively, the terrorist's viewpoint is as acceptable as mine. Subjectively, people trying to kill me is wrong. Subjectivity wins. -------------------- Voice of Reasonable Morality Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Saturday, October 9 2004 15:25
Profile
Homepage
I can't make even the slightest modicum of sense out of Toast's post. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Saturday, October 9 2004 15:38
Profile
I Would Pay Your Wergild-- Plato is most remembered for The Allegory of the Cave, and Phaedo-- Apology -- when he drinks hemlock and apologizes for his behavior in Athens. These are understandable and for the most part enlightening. They may be a a good place to start. TM what it basically comes down to is if someone approaches me with an extreme ethical position-- I look at it with a healthy dose of skepticism and try to stay moderate. I'm really not worried about making sense a lot of the time. Sometimes I write in the style of a koan where what is being said can't be understood on a logical level. Silly statements like I have a masters degree yet I never finished high school. I am nothing but I encompass everything. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Saturday, October 9 2004 16:36
Profile
Oops double post. Many of the subjects on this board use circular logic. Including this one. DEFINITION -- Circular logic is a logical error, caused by first making some assumption that can't be proven true, then, on the basis of that assumption, deriving some result that is then used to "prove" that the first assumption is true. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, October 10 2004 00:18
Profile
Homepage
It's unavoidable. You can never prove anything true; you can't even prove that a formal system (such as logic) that you're using to prove something doesn't contradict itself. The only way to consistently do so is to resort to the use of a different formal system, which itself then has to be proved consistent, and so on ad infinitum. Study a little formal logic; it'll do you good. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 1249
|
written Sunday, October 10 2004 05:22
Profile
Homepage
Toast - it's more dangerous to consider all deviance as mere amorality. This, rather than the acceptation of deviance or looking at the reasons behind it, leads to polarization. What is extreme in one culture may be very moderate in another. This is not a rare phenomenon, or an aberration. Highlighting certain values (via education, press, people socializing with each other, etc. - in many different, subtle ways) helps maintain the social order. How can we even look at our culture from the "outside" - unless we can look at another culture from the "inside"? For example, as a Finn, I find it horrible that the Americans kill their own people. Or found it shocking when I first heard about it. We don't have the death penalty system. (Of course, it's not that simple: how to define culture? There are subcultures, American cultural values affect my culture through films, some people here have nothing agains death penalty, etc. However, if you have an opinion on which the majority is against you, it may be very hard to keep your own opinion under the constant attack without building defence mechanisms.) The theory of evolution applied to human societies (and morality values!) does lead to a question: if we are evolving all the time, are we better now than ever before? Is humanity getting better and greater all the time? And can we separate people who are more "evolved" from others? EDIT: I realized that I'm repeating someone again. Frustrating! [ Sunday, October 10, 2004 05:34: Message edited by: Milu ] Posts: 259 | Registered: Saturday, June 1 2002 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 4162
|
written Sunday, October 10 2004 06:42
Profile
Homepage
A moral system could be compared to a scientific outlook. Just because I believe the sun travels around the Earth, does not make it equally 'true' with all other 'opinions'. Thus if morality can be justified by degress of objectivity ( i.e. using a more impersonal basis for the justifications involved - which by default we are necessarily comprised of) then it would imply that in theory a universal morality could be established. To avoid confusion, morality I think consists of different levels. Some are abstract values which may or may not be relatable to our fundamentally physical nature. Although these questions depend on other subjects of inquiry independent of ethics. Yet if we even assume a rational basis to any degree of our scientific knowledge, then types or levels of morality are not beyond objective criteria, they just happen to be inhumanly complex. Please consider how appeals to ignorance will not suffice for questioning this point. Which is not to say that we have the criteria to ascertain such a basis, only that it follows that it is possible and perhaps necessary depending on our beliefs regarding our capacity for types of knowledge. Posts: 36 | Registered: Sunday, March 28 2004 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, October 10 2004 06:56
Profile
quote:Evolution depends on something called natural selection. This states that individuals who are more apt to survive to the current set of dynamic conditons are more likely to survive and able to pass their genetic material to their offspring. You could apply this to human societies, but I give a caveat to doing this. In modern society, people with most diseases survive because of advances in medicine. People with genetic disabilities are, for the most part, able to get treatment (which does not change their genetic makeup) and able to pass on their genes to their offspring. The real question here is: To what degree does natural selection play in our society today? The answer to this is debatable and there is no general consensus in the scientific community. However, I think there is fairly good agreement that it is not as strong as it used to be ten thousand years ago for the reasons I cited above. An interesting thought to ponder is that in the next century, we will probably have the ability to control our genetics. At this point all bets are off. The effects of natural selection will probably become minute compared to the human induced selection that we could create. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Sunday, October 10 2004 08:35
Profile
Homepage
Natural selection is certainly less selective. If I had been born two hundred years ago, I would probably not have survived long enough to speak. A hundred years ago I would have had good odds of never reaching adulthood. Now, I am not only speaking, I am looking forward to living to a ripe old age. I'm even holding out hope of getting replacement limbs if the government ever stops suppressing medical research. However, with the loss of selection for hardiness, strength, or intelligence (never a huge selector anyway), what we have now is memes. I found some interesting papers on the subject, none of which I can now locate, but the ideas were convincing. We are now a species that selects for arbitrarily selected traits that may change at the literal drop of a hat. —Alorael, who isn't sure this is natural selection. On the other hand, it isn't an artificial breeding program, either. Just remember that evolution isn't directed in any particular way. In the absence of environmental pressure, random trait fluctuation is as good as anything else. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Sunday, October 10 2004 09:03
Profile
Homepage
quote:You fall into a common trap here, old friend: you assume evolution naturally leads to a better species. It does not; merely a hardier one. Natural selection once weeded out the weak, the unhealthy, and the incompetent. Now we have ways of fixing weakness, poor health, and the results of stupidity (if not stupidity itself). In evolutionary terms, the only remaining beneficial trait is, in fact, stupidity; they will have more children because they don't seem to either be capable of contraception or the idea that more children will put an excess burden on them. So the stupid people propagate more rapidly in the gene pool. Sure, in places like Kenya, it makes sense to have 8 or 9 kids -- there's no system of social security, so every extra set of hands is a godsend. But here, it is lunacy. Just because evolution does not lead to a better species does not mean it's not evolution, it just means what, evolutionarily, 'better' means, has changed. Stupidity is, in Darwinian terms, the most strongly favorable trait in the modern world. Someone as dumb as a sack of bricks isn't going to make a lot of money or leave much spiritual mark on the world, but boy, are they going to leave a genetic one on it. It must be remembered, thus, that evolution is a process and not a living creature: whoever gets the most kids out, wins. (As long as the kids aren't sterile or sickly.) It's that simple. Evolution DOES apply to a society with free will, just differently, and in a more complex way. [ Sunday, October 10, 2004 09:14: Message edited by: Fear Uncertainty and Custer ] -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 5005
|
written Sunday, October 10 2004 09:17
Profile
This thread is a great review for my Philosophy midterm on Subjectivism and Morality, coming up on Tuesday. Gracias, amigos. :cool: -------------------- Beware the Were-Rabbit! Posts: 45 | Registered: Tuesday, September 21 2004 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, October 10 2004 16:07
Profile
quote:I never said that evolution makes a species "better", just more apt to survive to the changing conditions it is in. Right now conditions are pretty amicable to just about any human being without a serious defect, this does lead to the things you speak of. So, yes we agree. However, I do think you are oversimplifying the problem as H.G. Wells did in The Time Machine. Evolution is an extremely complicated and subtle process. I've seen papers on many sides of the issue using complex mathematical models. The problem with the stupidity argument goes back to the question of what is the cause of intelligence. There is some genetic component, but a lot of it is environmental. Where we will end up on the stupidity end is a question as to the true nature of intelligence. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4942
|
written Sunday, October 10 2004 18:19
Profile
OK-here is my 2 cents about morality, ethics, etc: I believe that morality is something you aquire really. I mean, there are sociopaths who don't give a care about anyone else's life, their own, or anything else. They are able to kill without caring. Are they doing "bad"? There are kids at school who are suspended, over and over, and still act the way they do. This is what society has pushed on some people: apathy. Who is to say what is bad and what is good? Hitler thought what he was doing was right. No, he KNEW what he was doing was right. Otherwise, he wouldn't be who he was, and did what he did, correct? This brings up the question of what WE CAN KNOW, and what we can't. What is true knowlege? But our own senses of good and evil differ by our own experiences and upbringings. I do not believe a deity or god determines what is good and evil, it is us. "Then why care about anything, be nice to people, and treat things with kindness and compassion?" is a question I ask myself. "Why even continue to live, if there is no point, no justice in the end, why can't I do whatever the hell I want?" I have found that I have certian obligations to myself, and being compassionate, caring, etc is one. My mother also pulled out an encounter someone wrote about involving Gary Snyder. A person in a forum asked him the questions stated previously, and he replied; "it is not a matter of what is good and bad, it is a matter of STYLE AND CHARACTER." or something like that. So that is how I like to justify my compassion, (or at least I'd like to think I am compassionate :) ) It is a matter of style and character what we do in this world. :cool: -------------------- Wham Bam Shizam Posts: 247 | Registered: Monday, September 6 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4256
|
written Monday, October 11 2004 04:51
Profile
quote:If a bunch of kids were raised together from their birth w/o any outside influence would they all just be sociopathic killers? Obviously any experiment of this kind is entirally too inhumane to do but the results would be interesting to know about. Any morality/ethics that they had would be the result of some inate "instinct" for lack of a better word. Going back to an earlier point- quote:I agreed with this but thinking it over again the critical part of this is what you "think" is right. with moral relativism you can believe that no matter what you are doing it is the right thing thus circumventing any point this function of the human psycho. A human can do what is most pleasurable for him/her and tell himself that it is not only pleasurable but "right" thus increasing the pleasure from the action. On evolution though the stupidity thing seems like it would eventually lead to a weaker/less durable species. wouldn't that defeat the point. Also, stupid people and having lots of children? I don't see the connection. Maybe its because I have too many siblings :) Please elucidate for those of us from larger families. Posts: 564 | Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, October 11 2004 04:59
Profile
Homepage
quote:This "experiment" was actually conducted repeatedly (if unintentionally) in certain badly-run orphanages a century or two ago, where staff provided food and water while avoiding any emotional contact with the children to the greatest extent possible. The result was that the children all stopped developing physically and mentally, refused to eat and died. Whoops. quote:Mice are weaker than elephants. There are more mice in the world than elephants, and they're more widely distributed. Being weaker isn't a problem if you also breed faster. If stupid people aren't more likely to reproduce, why is education inversely correlated to number of children? [ Monday, October 11, 2004 05:03: Message edited by: Prince Albert in a Can ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4256
|
written Monday, October 11 2004 05:25
Profile
Education requires money- More children requires more money- Equating education to intelligence, well that seems doubtful. what I was asking though is why stupid people would have more children. Not the result of it. My fathers family- 5 children 3 sons 2 daughters. The two daughters are both the owners of their own companies. One son is a VP of some big corp, another was a researcher for MIT, and the other is a doctor. all of them went to college, three of them have a masters or higher and none of them are stupid. My own family. 5 children, the three children that are already through highschool were all in the top 5% of their class and the two that are far enough along in college to tell how they are doing are doing very well. Maybe you mean 7-8 children, but even then, one of the smartest people I know is the second out of 8 children. All 8 of the children have been educated by their mother. The youngest is aged 3 and has been reading for almost a year now. Once more I am taking my own experience and applying it to a larger world, but it really is all anybody has to go on, so... What statistics are you getting this correlation from? Posts: 564 | Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Monday, October 11 2004 06:22
Profile
Education is not directly correlated to intelligence. The reason people have more children is cultural not because they are stupid. Catholics think it is immoral to use birth control and abortion for example-- therefore they have more children. A large portion of the immigrant population is Catholic especially from the Latin American countries in the United States. The "stupid" statement is barely hidden racism in this case. I have heard this line many times from bitter people who are angry because they are intelligent and not "advancing" in their life. This attitude if openly expressed is a guaranteed way to get you stuck in your career and life. It is very divisive. There are also many types of intelligence which can be tested for. Ultimately, emotional and social stability are more important than intelligence in many cases. Many Islamic people believes it is more important to have a large healthy family than acquire lots of property and wealth. People are more respected for this than having three houses in the middle east. We have a notion that it is good to have just 2 kids in the United States. This is not true for many parts of the world. With free genetic testing two things happen. Most people refuse to have retarded children or handicapped children. Thus there are less people who are "stupid" which is an obnoxious statement. Eventually if genetic testing is widespread enough and cheap enough, the level of what is considered unacceptably stupid will rise. More important than stupid is the ability to diagnose genetic tendencies towards schizophrenia, depression, and other mental illnesses. This allows people to prepare for children who may have destructive tendencies and raise them accordingly. You can start early in life so you won't have a nut case later in life. The second thing which happens which is surprising is boys are chosen over girls which is a sickness. In India and China there has been explosion in the birth rate of boys I think it might be as high as 10 boys for every girl in some areas. This will eventually cause a population die off in some areas of the world about 2-3 generations from now. It will also hopefully change the attitude towards women in these areas. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 22
|
written Monday, October 11 2004 07:23
Profile
quote:That's twisting Thuryl's words so much it's unreal. Not once did he make any mention of Catholics or their likelihood to reproduce. And there is a correlation between intelligence and education, if not a very strong one. The only thing that prevents it from being a strong correlation is the inefficiency of the education system when it comes to working class children. quote:I'm very distrustful of the psychology behind the "many types of intelligence" theory. It's always appeared to me that it's simply a method that the education system uses to try and convince its pupils that they are all intellectually equal. As far as I'm concerned, you can fit most people's intelligence into either practical or academic. quote:I see no reason why, if we have the power to do so, we should not predispose children towards intelligence. quote:In China at least, that occured as a side effect of the one-child policy. In a society where boys are favoured over girls strongly, women were aborting their female babies and trying again for a boy. A population die-off, however, is exactly what is needed in places like China. It wouldn't be so much a die-off as a decrease in birth rate, which could only be a good thing. Posts: 2862 | Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00 |