Ehitcs revisted

[DougShrapnel]

The debate over ethics has a varied history. Believers and non-believers alike have at times have limited correctness and goodness to the realm of God. There are others among us who have taken the stance that we can know of ethics without God. This thread isn’t about the ethics of God. If you wish to argue for the ethics of god in this thread you may do so without using the word god. The general debate over issues is normally a dialectical one. You take this stance, I take the opposite. At certain point in the complexity of an issue it becomes necessary to for debate to exist in a different forum than the dialectic. It is not determinism vs freewill, or absolute vs relative, intrinsic vs subjective, or even altruism vs objectivism. Ethics has reached that level of complexity.

To start the conversation I will propose 3 different systems of ethics. Chezlaw and I have, I think, agreed that ethics are derived from values. David appears to be stating that ethics is determined by society. Chezlaw and I disagree on what the system of values used to determine proper ethics is. A main difference is that Chez wants to say that goodness is based in part on how much you help others, I seem to state the goodness is determined by how your actions forward your own goals and values. I will certainly take more time to give a more correct synopsis, but here are some my thoughts, what are yours?

Some similarities between the 3
Evolution has some say in ethics.
Reason can be used to clarify what one means by saying an action is ethical, unethical, or merely OK.
Ethics is a way to determine actions.
Different ethics for different people. David/intelligence, Chez/feelings, Douglas/knowledge

Some differences
In David’s ethics, evolution may be the judge of ethical actions.
In Chezlaw’s ethics, evolution may be the originator of ethics,
In Douglas’s ethics, evolution may have given us the tools to understand ethics.

Some implications
David’s theory of ethics rests on what is good for society as a whole is correct action,
Chezlaw’s theory of ethics rests on a conflict between actions that help others and actions that only help oneself.
Douglas’s theory of ethics rests on yet to be elucidated hierarchy of values.

Weird conclusions that can be drawn from these ethics
David
Murder is OK
The doctor patient question
One has a duty if capable to provide more to society than those less capable.

Chezlaw
Man’s life exists as a sacrifice.
One has a duty to obey moral feelings.

Douglas’s
Ethics can only be known as much as we are able to know. Ethics are completely useless without correct knowledge.
One has a duty to learn.
One can not be held responsible if one has not been educated.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Chezlaw
Man’s life exists as a sacrifice.
One has a duty to obey moral feelings.

[/ QUOTE ]
How did I get saddled with these?

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chezlaw
Man’s life exists as a sacrifice.
One has a duty to obey moral feelings.

[/ QUOTE ]
How did I get saddled with these?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]Change it anyway you like.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chezlaw
Man’s life exists as a sacrifice.
One has a duty to obey moral feelings.

[/ QUOTE ]
How did I get saddled with these?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]Change it anyway you like.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, good post by the way, could be interesting. I'm not sure what conclusion can be drawn from my views, wierd or otherwise.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

"Ok, good post by the way, could be interesting. I'm not sure what conclusion can be drawn from my views, wierd or otherwise."

I kinda put this together hastily. If there is something you wish to change, add, or delete regarding anything let me know. I'll try and put a much better post together in the near future, once we get some more information.

Is this better for a Chez conclusion? I can do no better than follow my moral feeling.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this better for a Chez conclusion? I can do no better than follow my moral feeling.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes please, I think thats right.

chez

I think I agree with all 3. Or maybe have some disagreements. I'll need more details, though.

Here's your summary:

Chez: Ethics derived from values; goodness based on helping others.
Doug: Ethics derived from values; goodness based on helping yourself.
David: Ethics determined by society.

I think personal ethics (morality) is determined by what increases happiness. It's comprised of what increases your happiness, as well as what increases the happiness of others. Since we live in a shared reality, we have to cooperate with each other, and come to a consensus about what things are good or bad for the society. So, I think I agree with all 3 of you.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I agree with all 3. Or maybe have some disagreements. I'll need more details, though.

Here's your summary:

Chez: Ethics derived from values; goodness based on helping others.
Doug: Ethics derived from values; goodness based on helping yourself.
David: Ethics determined by society.

I think personal ethics (morality) is determined by what increases happiness. It's comprised of what increases your happiness, as well as what increases the happiness of others. Since we live in a shared reality, we have to cooperate with each other, and come to a consensus about what things are good or bad for the society. So, I think I agree with all 3 of you.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if this is a 4th camp or if it's a better explaination of one of the camps.
KipBond: ethics is determined by what increases happiness.

Does it place any wieght on whose happiness? Is one's own "happiness unit" a ratio to a "happiness unit" of another that is close to you or of a perfect stanger.
I say one's own happiness is worth a ton more than the rest. I am going to take the AR persepctive that increasing the happiness unit of a love one is done only because it increases a happiness unit of oneself.
Chez, I think, may be working on a relationship approaching 1 to 1 but never exceeding it in relation to strangers. But possibly exceeding it in the case of love ones.
David, I think, and it's hard for me to tell. Sees strong evidence for the random "happiness unit" as good. As well as the self "happiness unit". Of course he may think this whole ehtics is a merely never ending conflict. Chez might agree with that statement he would just have to remove the merely.

Where do you rank happiness units?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I say one's own happiness is worth a ton more than the rest. I am going to take the AR persepctive that increasing the happiness unit of a love one is done only because it increases a happiness unit of oneself.


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with that, I don't think it seperates our views. the difference is only in the why other peoples happiness increases our happiness.


[ QUOTE ]
Chez, I think, may be working on a relationship approaching 1 to 1 but never exceeding it in relation to strangers. But possibly exceeding it in the case of love ones.

[/ QUOTE ]
My view is its down to evolution. To understand why we are evolved to value the happiness of others is to understand why its useful to the survival of our genes.

In human terms that can reult in a very wide range of caring about the happiness of others. It ranges from people who wouldn't life a finger to help someone else (unless they 'computed' it was to their advantage), to people who would put their life at great risk to save a strangers puppy.

The attempt to explain moralilty in terms of the prisoners dilemma and cooperation is correct in part. No doubt evolution discovered that cooperation is good for the genes. However evolution is a fickle business and once prospective mates recognised morality as a good thing in a partner then selection of those most moral can lead morality a long way from its original use - maybe all the way to religon.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
My view is its down to evolution. To understand why we are evolved to value the happiness of others is to understand why its useful to the survival of our genes.

In human terms that can reult in a very wide range of caring about the happiness of others. It ranges from people who wouldn't life a finger to help someone else (unless they 'computed' it was to their advantage), to people who would put their life at great risk to save a strangers puppy.

The attempt to explain moralilty in terms of the prisoners dilemma and cooperation is correct in part. No doubt evolution discovered that cooperation is good for the genes. However evolution is a fickle business and once prospective mates recognised morality as a good thing in a partner then selection of those most moral can lead morality a long way from its original use - maybe all the way to religon.


[/ QUOTE ] This post is pruely fascinating. I think I agree in whole. But the issue reagrding ethics with consciousness, is that we have the ability to see thru the evolutionary advangetages and recognize ethics for its original use, and current distorted use. We can determine if that original evolutionary use is correct, or if we wish to instead intently spread a correct ethical approach thru memes. Thus rising above our genes and memes to make correct actions.

There are some bogus ethics in religions that applied to people at an earlier time. The problem I see happing is that these bogus ethics devalue the "real" ethics.
<outside of thread topic maybe>
I could go on about how pascals wager instead of bringing more people to God, lets people think they have the benefites of a religous belief structure without having to do any of the Good ethical actions within the religious texts.
</outside of thread topic maybe>

But none of that is really my concern in this thread, can we know correct ethical actions, and what are they is. If we can't know or if there aren't than all beliefs are ethicaly equal, and only results count.

[ QUOTE ]
Where do you rank happiness units?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think we are interconnected -- not in a spiritual sense, but in reality. Every day there are tens, hundreds, perhaps thousands of people that affect me -- affect my happiness. Because of this, one person's happiness affects other people's happiness. My own happiness is very motivating -- it affects my immediate decisions. However, I do think that the overall happiness -- of all people -- is what's really important. But, that is best achieved, usually, I think, by allowing people to maximinze their own happiness, while preventing them from limiting or decreasing others' happiness.

Like Chez said... it's very fortunate that our evolution has led us to usually be happy when other's are happy. It's not a rule, but it's the norm. So, we should act to maximize our happiness as far as it's not hurting the happiness of others.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
This post is pruely fascinating. I think I agree in whole. But the issue reagrding ethics with consciousness, is that we have the ability to see thru the evolutionary advangetages and recognize ethics for its original use, and current distorted use. We can determine if that original evolutionary use is correct, or if we wish to instead intently spread a correct ethical approach thru memes. Thus rising above our genes and memes to make correct actions.


[/ QUOTE ]
I basically agree, the difference is largly semantic. My major interest here, is to realise that there are two different things (slightly different from my usual two things):

Morality as a value. Its the nature of a human to be a moral creature and value the well-being of others.

Morality as rationality. Its in the nature of a rational creature to cooperate where cooperation serves its values.

The mistake many make (especially the more rational people) is to like the latter so much that they deny the existence of the former. This mistake is aided by the fact that that the former exists primarily because cooperation is useful (and hence rational) and so looks a bit like the latter.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This post is pruely fascinating. I think I agree in whole. But the issue reagrding ethics with consciousness, is that we have the ability to see thru the evolutionary advangetages and recognize ethics for its original use, and current distorted use. We can determine if that original evolutionary use is correct, or if we wish to instead intently spread a correct ethical approach thru memes. Thus rising above our genes and memes to make correct actions.


[/ QUOTE ]
I basically agree, the difference is largly semantic. My major interest here, is to realise that there are two different things (slightly different from my usual two things):

Morality as a value. Its the nature of a human to be a moral creature and value the well-being of others.

Morality as rationality. Its in the nature of a rational creature to cooperate where cooperation serves its values.

The mistake many make (especially the more rational people) is to like the latter so much that they deny the existence of the former. This mistake is aided by the fact that that the former exists primarily because cooperation is useful (and hence rational) and so looks a bit like the latter.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]Chez I think this might spell out the differences quite well. If I may go back to "I can do no better than to follow my own morale feelings" I think this states that one has a moral compass. It also states that this moral compass could malfunction. And if it is malfunctioning I can do no better. And this is where the rational asspect comes in, as well as knowledge. Can one know what the correct moral compass is? Well I'm not sure if we can know entirely the correct moral compass, but we can at least know aspects of it. It may get to the point that we can know a close enough aproxiamtion that any human action has a ethically correct action. It may not matter if the correct action was discovered thru reason or feelings provided it is the correct action. At the point where we recognize that our moral compass(feelings) are found lacking it is then that we must ethical act rationally to correct our moral compass, not instead to say that I can do no better. How does one know of correct actions, in the same way as we gain other knowledge.

[ QUOTE ]
How does one know of correct actions, in the same way as we gain other knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to see Chez's response. But here is mine:

Only we can judge our happiness. People are irrational, though, and may think something increases their happiness when it's really not. And, how do they know that? By learning, I suppose. Reading about other people, and what makes them happy. Since people are quite a lot a like, it's likely that what makes most people happy, will probably make me happy. So, I can try it and see.

Also, we need to know where our values differ from most people's -- so that we can treat them how they would want to be treated, even though it may differ from how we would want to be treated.

So, we know the correct actions by learning: reading, interacting with other people, trial-and-error, apologizing when we fail, and discussing these things on 2+2.

[purnell]

Kip, or anybody else that has an opinion,

How would you counter the argument that happiness is a personal choice? That no person or thing can "make you happy" if you choose to be unhappy, and conversely nothing can make you unhappy if you do not grant permission. In other words, that happiness does not come from ouside your skull.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Only we can judge our happiness.

[/ QUOTE ] Against what?

[ QUOTE ]
People are irrational, though, and may think something increases their happiness when it's really not.

[/ QUOTE ] If that is the case, then we can judge other peoples happiness.

[ QUOTE ]
By learning, I suppose.

[/ QUOTE ] This is what I say.

[ QUOTE ]
So, we know the correct actions by learning: reading, interacting with other people, trial-and-error, apologizing when we fail, and discussing these things on 2+2.

[/ QUOTE ] Doesn't seem so far fethced to me.

[ QUOTE ]
How would you counter the argument that happiness is a personal choice? That no person or thing can "make you happy" if you choose to be unhappy, and conversely nothing can make you unhappy if you do not grant permission. In other words, that happiness does not come from ouside your skull.

[/ QUOTE ]

No counter... I think that's pretty much right, from my experience. However, I'm also a determinist, and I know that I can't just "choose" to be happy. Things outside of my head, affect what's inside my head. Part of being happy, (and thus part of morality), is learning how to not let things make you unhappy when it's not necessary.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Only we can judge our happiness.

[/ QUOTE ] Against what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you asking how do I know if I'm happy? I think so... and if so, that's a great question. Chez might say his feelings, and you might say your reasoning. I would say both, probably. Can you and Chez both answer this question? How do you know if you are happy?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are irrational, though, and may think something increases their happiness when it's really not.

[/ QUOTE ] If that is the case, then we can judge other peoples happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we can guess, but the ultimate judge has to be them. But, the answer to the previous question will probably shed some light on this one, too.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you asking how do I know if I'm happy? I think so... and if so, that's a great question. Chez might say his feelings, and you might say your reasoning. I would say both, probably. Can you and Chez both answer this question? How do you know if you are happy?


[/ QUOTE ] No I'm not asking that. I'm just asking how do we judge the good happy from the bad happy. But I'll answer you question as I think it is important. You can probably measure happiness in the brains pleasure center.

From some website
"Olds and Milner (1954) first identified brain sites where direct electrical stimulation is reinforcing. Laboratory animals will lever press at high rates (> 6,000 times per hour) to obtain brief stimulation pulses to certain brain regions. The reinforcement from direct electrical activation of this reward substrate is more potent than other rewards, such as food or water. The potency of this electrical stimulation is most dramatically illustrated in a classic experiment where the subjects suffered self-imposed starvation when forced to make a choice between obtaining food and water or electrical brain stimulation (Routtenberg & Lindy, 1965). A second distinguishing feature of reward from electrical brain stimulation is the lack of satiation; animals generally respond continuously, taking only brief breaks from lever pressing to obtain the electrical stimulation. These two features (i.e., super-potent reward and lack of satiation) are important characteristics of direct activation of brain reward mechanisms.
Initial work suggested that a number of brain regions could produce rewarding effects, but many of these seemingly diverse stimulation sites were quickly linked through a common neural pathway—the medial forebrain bundle (Olds, 1977). Although it is true that activation of other brain systems can produce rewarding effects, activation of the medial forebrain bundle as it courses through the lateral hypothalamus to the ventral tegmentum produces the most robust rewarding effects. And several neurotransmitters may be involved in the rewarding effects from various electrode placements, but dopamine appears to be the neurotransmitter essential for reward from activation of the medial forebrain bundle system (see Fibiger & Phillips, 1979; Wise, 1978). The neuroanatomical elements of rewarding stimulation have been identified using electrophysiological and neurochemical techniques: electrical stimulation activates a descending component of the medial forebrain bundle which is synaptically coupled at the ventral tegmentum to the ascending mesolimbic dopamine system. Rewarding electrical stimulation thus activates a circuitous reward pathway, first involving a descending medial forebrain bundle component and then involving the ascending mesolimbic dopamine pathway (Bozarth, 1987a; Wise, & Bozarth, 1984). The terms mesolimbic and ventral tegmental dopamine system are used interchangeably in this context, both denoting the same dopamine system involved in reward and motivation.

Research with laboratory animals generally uses an operant conditioning perspective when studying reward processes (viz., without reference to possible subjective effects), but research in human subjects has revealed that comparable electrical brain stimulation is associated with profoundly pleasurable effects (e.g., Heath, 1964). Indeed, some experimental subjects liken the effect of electrical brain stimulation to intense sexual orgasm, and anecdotal reports suggest that human subjects have developed a strong romantic attraction to the researchers performing the experiments. For obvious ethical reasons, research with human subjects has been very limited. But the available data suggest that the principles learned from animal experimentation are valid for human subjects; studies of electrical stimulation of reward pathways in humans provide direct evidence that stimulation that is reinforcing in animals is both reinforcing and intensely pleasurable in humans. "

But it doens't separate the ethical happiness for the unethical happiness. Which is what I'd like to know.

[ QUOTE ]
I think we can guess, but the ultimate judge has to be them. But, the answer to the previous question will probably shed some light on this one, too.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not trying to get at if we can find out if someone is happy, only that that happiness is ethical or not. More to the point, if the actions that caused that happiness are ethical.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you asking how do I know if I'm happy? I think so... and if so, that's a great question. Chez might say his feelings, and you might say your reasoning. I would say both, probably. Can you and Chez both answer this question? How do you know if you are happy?


[/ QUOTE ] No I'm not asking that. I'm just asking how do we judge the good happy from the bad happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused... but I'll express my confusion below...

[ QUOTE ]
But I'll answer you question as I think it is important. You can probably measure happiness in the brains pleasure center.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean "ephemeral pleasure" when I say "happy". The bain's pleasure center would be a measure of ephemeral happiness. I would be "happy" while getting a cavity filled, but I would be increasing my happiness.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think we can guess, but the ultimate judge has to be them. But, the answer to the previous question will probably shed some light on this one, too.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not trying to get at if we can find out if someone is happy, only that that happiness is ethical or not. More to the point, if the actions that caused that happiness are ethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my definition, happiness is good. It can't be bad. By definition, good is that which increases happiness. The actions that caused the happiness... that would mean they were "right", unless it also decreased the happiness of others, and/or didn't really increase your "true happiness"... then it would be "wrong".

[ QUOTE ]
But I'll answer you question as I think it is important. You can probably measure happiness in the brains pleasure center.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, can you answer the question for yourself. How YOU (Doug) know when YOU are happy? Surely you don't go get a brain scan? How do you know? And then, how do you think it's best to know? How is happiness best measured?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Kip, or anybody else that has an opinion,

How would you counter the argument that happiness is a personal choice? That no person or thing can "make you happy" if you choose to be unhappy, and conversely nothing can make you unhappy if you do not grant permission. In other words, that happiness does not come from ouside your skull.

[/ QUOTE ]There is much to be gleamed from this post.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This post is pruely fascinating. I think I agree in whole. But the issue reagrding ethics with consciousness, is that we have the ability to see thru the evolutionary advangetages and recognize ethics for its original use, and current distorted use. We can determine if that original evolutionary use is correct, or if we wish to instead intently spread a correct ethical approach thru memes. Thus rising above our genes and memes to make correct actions.


[/ QUOTE ]
I basically agree, the difference is largly semantic. My major interest here, is to realise that there are two different things (slightly different from my usual two things):

Morality as a value. Its the nature of a human to be a moral creature and value the well-being of others.

Morality as rationality. Its in the nature of a rational creature to cooperate where cooperation serves its values.

The mistake many make (especially the more rational people) is to like the latter so much that they deny the existence of the former. This mistake is aided by the fact that that the former exists primarily because cooperation is useful (and hence rational) and so looks a bit like the latter.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]Chez I think this might spell out the differences quite well. If I may go back to "I can do no better than to follow my own morale feelings" I think this states that one has a moral compass. It also states that this moral compass could malfunction. And if it is malfunctioning I can do no better. And this is where the rational asspect comes in, as well as knowledge. Can one know what the correct moral compass is? Well I'm not sure if we can know entirely the correct moral compass, but we can at least know aspects of it. It may get to the point that we can know a close enough aproxiamtion that any human action has a ethically correct action. It may not matter if the correct action was discovered thru reason or feelings provided it is the correct action. At the point where we recognize that our moral compass(feelings) are found lacking it is then that we must ethical act rationally to correct our moral compass, not instead to say that I can do no better. How does one know of correct actions, in the same way as we gain other knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]
The reason that I can do no better than follow my own moral feelings is that they are situation dependent and reflect my understanding of the situation. If my moral compass point the wrong way then its because I haven't understood the situation properly in which case there is no method that will reliably guide me to a better action.

So its not that my moral compass might malfunction, its that it can only reflect my level of understanding which might be woefully bad e.g. I might think something will make me happy when in fact it doesn't.

I should add to my previous post that morality as rationality is not just cooperation with others. Its also the method by which we decide which action best serves our possibly conflicting goals. This may be different enough from cooperation that it deserves its own catagory.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you asking how do I know if I'm happy? I think so... and if so, that's a great question. Chez might say his feelings, and you might say your reasoning. I would say both, probably. Can you and Chez both answer this question? How do you know if you are happy?

[/ QUOTE ]
There are things we want. These are our values, I'm not sure happiness is a very helpful term. Things are good if they are what we value.

Its not instant gratification. Smoking is a good example, I might want a cigarette (20+ times a day) but also want to have a healthy future. The 'correct' action must balance these conflicting wants to best effect. This depends on the strength of my values and my understanding of the health effects of smoking. If I understand that smoking has no bearing on my future health that would be very different to if I understood I would lose one year of life for every puff.

Its also not trivial (probably impossible) to balance my different values and calculate a definite correct action (even if I had perfect understanding)

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
There are things we want. These are our values,

[/ QUOTE ] Do you wish to make a case that both values and desires are good compasses for ethical actions, or only values, or do you wish to use them interchangeably?

[ QUOTE ]
There are things we want. These are our values, I'm not sure happiness is a very helpful term. Things are good if they are what we value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we value things because they make us happy. I think "happiness" would be the prime good, from which are values are based. You might just be using the terms interchangeably, I'm not sure. If not, what criteria do you use to determine if you "value" something? If you keep asking yourself "why" you value something, or "why" it's important... ultimately, I think the answer will be because it makes you happy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you know if you are happy?

[/ QUOTE ]
There are things we want. These are our values, I'm not sure happiness is a very helpful term. Things are good if they are what we value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should rephrase the question, then.

How do YOU (and Doug) know if something makes you happy, how do you know if you value something, how do you know what things you want. In other words, what criteria do you use to measure whatever it is you think is your prime critera of "goodness".

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you know if you are happy?

[/ QUOTE ]
There are things we want. These are our values, I'm not sure happiness is a very helpful term. Things are good if they are what we value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should rephrase the question, then.

How do YOU (and Doug) know if something makes you happy, how do you know if you value something, how do you know what things you want. In other words, what criteria do you use to measure whatever it is you think is your prime critera of "goodness".

[/ QUOTE ]This is kinda the question that I'm asking. Which values are worthy of ethics, which values are good for me to pursue. It's easy to just say do what makes you happy, and I do, but are my goals worth purseuing? Which values are the ones that people should consume(internalize) if they wish to act ethically? And if we can find those good values not only should we consume them but we should produce them as well.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you know if you are happy?

[/ QUOTE ]
There are things we want. These are our values, I'm not sure happiness is a very helpful term. Things are good if they are what we value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should rephrase the question, then.

How do YOU (and Doug) know if something makes you happy, how do you know if you value something, how do you know what things you want. In other words, what criteria do you use to measure whatever it is you think is your prime critera of "goodness".

[/ QUOTE ]This is kinda the question that I'm asking. Which values are worthy of ethics, which values are good for me to pursue. It's easy to just say do what makes you happy, and I do, but are my goals worth purseuing? Which values are the ones that people should consume(internalize) if they wish to act ethically? And if we can find those good values not only should we consume them but we should produce them as well.

[/ QUOTE ]The consume/produce of values might be something ascribed to David's Sins of Ommision, Sins Of commision. Davids ethic might treat failure to produce ethical values as the same as not internalizing ehtical vlaues. I don't wish to take it that far in my ethics. Not sure how chez would think of it.

[ QUOTE ]
This is kinda the question that I'm asking. Which values are worthy of ethics, which values are good for me to pursue. It's easy to just say do what makes you happy, and I do, but are my goals worth purseuing? Which values are the ones that people should consume(internalize) if they wish to act ethically?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not entirely sure we're talking about the same thing... but for sake of discussion, I'll assume that we're on the same page. And that when I ask "what things make me happy", or actually "how do I know that I'm happy", "how do I measure happiness"... it's the same as you asking which values are worthy of ethics. How do I determine worthiness? Something is "worth" something to me, if it increases my happiness. So, I'm back to how do I know if I'm increasing my happiness. What measure or criteria do I use to determine this? I know why people like having the Bible tell them the answers... because there may not be a right or wrong answer. But, I'm not sure.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are things we want. These are our values,

[/ QUOTE ] Do you wish to make a case that both values and desires are good compasses for ethical actions, or only values, or do you wish to use them interchangeably?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think its useful to label somethng as ethical and others not. I'm choosing what music to listen, no-one else is affected, it doesn't make much sense to call it an ethical decision.

I'm not sure of the best definition (do you have something in mind?) maybe anything that affects the well-being of others

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you know if you are happy?

[/ QUOTE ]
There are things we want. These are our values, I'm not sure happiness is a very helpful term. Things are good if they are what we value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should rephrase the question, then.

How do YOU (and Doug) know if something makes you happy, how do you know if you value something, how do you know what things you want. In other words, what criteria do you use to measure whatever it is you think is your prime critera of "goodness".

[/ QUOTE ]
Tough question. Part of life is learning what you want from it. The answer is possibly easy but very unsatisfying. At any point in our life, what we want is what we think we want.

Sadly at later points we realise that what we wanted before isn't what we would have wanted if we had known then what we know now.


chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is kinda the question that I'm asking. Which values are worthy of ethics, which values are good for me to pursue. It's easy to just say do what makes you happy, and I do, but are my goals worth purseuing? Which values are the ones that people should consume(internalize) if they wish to act ethically?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not entirely sure we're talking about the same thing... but for sake of discussion, I'll assume that we're on the same page. And that when I ask "what things make me happy", or actually "how do I know that I'm happy", "how do I measure happiness"... it's the same as you asking which values are worthy of ethics. How do I determine worthiness? Something is "worth" something to me, if it increases my happiness. So, I'm back to how do I know if I'm increasing my happiness. What measure or criteria do I use to determine this? I know why people like having the Bible tell them the answers... because there may not be a right or wrong answer. But, I'm not sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kip, I think that one can know happiness in the physical manifestation of happiness. A smile, a passionate embrace, a spring in your step, and also your happiness spreads to others around you, thus a good measure of your own happiness is how happy those around you are. I try to carry my own weather with me. So that I am always joyful, It doesn't matter what is thrown at me, I'm going just be happy. Sometimes I forget my plan, and I thank you and purnell for reminding me.

As far as if we where speaking on the same terms, I think there is a similarity between what you are asking and what I wish to say. I’m trying to find that similarity instead of focusing on things I might disagree with, like happiness is the goal or measurer of ethics. Then again, you may wish for me to say “It’s just a feeling”. Being happy is a choice, choosing to be happy instead of bitter is an ethical choice. Part of it is the company you keep. Part of it is the goals you undertake. Part of it is your outlook on life. Part of it is the intense human relationships that you experience. Happiness can be arrived at out of sheer will, selecting good company, accomplishing a goal, helping other people, or any sort of destructive pleasure, and any combination of these things and more. I am not a master of happiness but I wish to become one. Not like the stoics who would toss it aside as a foolish and faulty reaction. But instead as a human, embrace it and act with happiness in my heart, and thoughts. To treat happiness not as an objective that I only get as a reward for taking away things that I don’t want to be there, or by adding things that I do want, but as a description of self, consumed inward, and radiated outward. No amount of desires gained can make you happy. You just are happy. If you search outside yourself for it, your journey will be long and fruitless. If you look within you will see it, right there, waiting for you to act with.

Perhaps we are thinking of 2 different things, I'm not sure. It seeems that happiness has different perspectives with which one can examine it. We can look at the pleasure centers of the brain, we can go with our feelings, we can look at the physical manifestations of it, or if we wish we can give it levels and complexity. That doesn't mean that a particular pespective of happiness is more correct than the other, it's just that people aren't gonna see eye to eye on it that often.

Nice post. I agree. The only reason I wouldn't use the pleasure center, is because sometimes we make decisions for our long-term happiness, so our current state of pleasure might be quite low. Like a root canal, for instance. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I'm glad to see such an Objectivist be so open about their happiness. Most of them seem so stoic, you know? /images/graemlins/smile.gif I think we all agree... and we live our lives, as best we can, to try to be happy. Relationships are a big part of that, so making other people happy is a very good way to increase your own happiness.

I just lost 3 tourneys... I'm not too happy right now. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice post. I agree. The only reason I wouldn't use the pleasure center, is because sometimes we make decisions for our long-term happiness, so our current state of pleasure might be quite low. Like a root canal, for instance.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're saying that the pleasure center is what counts but you have to maximise pleasure over your whole life not just do what gives the most pleasure at any moment.

Imagine a drug that offers a lifetime of happiness. Taking the drug means you will spend the rest of your life in a hospital bed, doing nothing, extremely happy until you die a peaceful death.

The drug offers far more pleasure than you could possibly hope for if you dont take the drug.

Would you take it?

chez

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine a drug that offers a lifetime of happiness. Taking the drug means you will spend the rest of your life in a hospital bed, doing nothing, extremely happy until you die a peaceful death.

The drug offers far more pleasure than you could possibly hope for if you dont take the drug.

Would you take it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how I could be happy spending the rest of my life in a hospital bed. I've thought about "The Matrix", though... and if I were given the opportunity to take the "blue pill", so to speak, to have the chance to live inside of a virtual paradise, forever happy... or take a "red pill", which would wake me up from the illusion, and put me in the real world... only, I would be far less happy there, perhaps even suffering... then which would I do? Truth or Happiness. If it were that simple of a question, then I would take Happiness over Truth. But, in the real world, it seems that most of the time Truth is a very useful tool in achieving/maintaining happiness.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Imagine a drug that offers a lifetime of happiness. Taking the drug means you will spend the rest of your life in a hospital bed, doing nothing, extremely happy until you die a peaceful death.

The drug offers far more pleasure than you could possibly hope for if you dont take the drug.

Would you take it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how I could be happy spending the rest of my life in a hospital bed. I've thought about "The Matrix", though... and if I were given the opportunity to take the "blue pill", so to speak, to have the chance to live inside of a virtual paradise, forever happy... or take a "red pill", which would wake me up from the illusion, and put me in the real world... only, I would be far less happy there, perhaps even suffering... then which would I do? Truth or Happiness. If it were that simple of a question, then I would take Happiness over Truth. But, in the real world, it seems that most of the time Truth is a very useful tool in achieving/maintaining happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I may say, thats a bit of a cop out. Its a pretty easy thought experimment to imagine a drug (or machine) that feeds the pleasure center, removes concern about the external world and keeps you alive for a 'lifetime'. Like a very powerful but sustainable morphine high.

It wouldn't be particularly surprising if such a thing became possible in the next few thousand years.

Obviously you might not take the offer because you think its a con of some sort, but if you knew it was genuine how could you not take it?

chez

The only way I WOULDN'T take the happy pill is if I believed that happiness was not the end goal. I don't believe it necessarily is. Although many of my friends are on Prozac type drugs and claim to get substantial relief from them, I would rather stubbornly battle through on my own. Why? Because I have found that happiness in and of itself is not the most important thing to me. Happiness can be overrated. So can misery.

g

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Imagine a drug that offers a lifetime of happiness. Taking the drug means you will spend the rest of your life in a hospital bed, doing nothing, extremely happy until you die a peaceful death.

The drug offers far more pleasure than you could possibly hope for if you dont take the drug.

Would you take it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how I could be happy spending the rest of my life in a hospital bed. I've thought about "The Matrix", though... and if I were given the opportunity to take the "blue pill", so to speak, to have the chance to live inside of a virtual paradise, forever happy... or take a "red pill", which would wake me up from the illusion, and put me in the real world... only, I would be far less happy there, perhaps even suffering... then which would I do? Truth or Happiness. If it were that simple of a question, then I would take Happiness over Truth. But, in the real world, it seems that most of the time Truth is a very useful tool in achieving/maintaining happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I may say, thats a bit of a cop out. Its a pretty easy thought experimment to imagine a drug (or machine) that feeds the pleasure center, removes concern about the external world and keeps you alive for a 'lifetime'. Like a very powerful but sustainable morphine high.

It wouldn't be particularly surprising if such a thing became possible in the next few thousand years.

Obviously you might not take the offer because you think its a con of some sort, but if you knew it was genuine how could you not take it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Happiness. I thought I answered the question. Now, it would be more difficult if the people in my current relationships would not choose or be able to also take the "happy pill", and would be very unhappy by me doing it. If I thought I would be causing more unhappiness than the happiness I would have by taking the pill, then I wouldn't take it. I think there would be better ways for me to be happy -- even if not AS happy, without causing unnecessary unhappiness to my loved ones.

I'm not one to cop out. I thought I answered your question. Now, your turn. What would you do? Red pill & truth... possible unhappiness. Or blue pill, and guaranteed happiness?

[ QUOTE ]
I have found that happiness in and of itself is not the most important thing to me. Happiness can be overrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) What is the most important thing to you?
2) Why is that the most important thing to you?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice post. I agree. The only reason I wouldn't use the pleasure center, is because sometimes we make decisions for our long-term happiness, so our current state of pleasure might be quite low. Like a root canal, for instance. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I'm glad to see such an Objectivist be so open about their happiness. Most of them seem so stoic, you know? /images/graemlins/smile.gif I think we all agree... and we live our lives, as best we can, to try to be happy. Relationships are a big part of that, so making other people happy is a very good way to increase your own happiness.

I just lost 3 tourneys... I'm not too happy right now. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]Well Kip, I'm not an Objectivist really, I've had about 3 weeks of study on some of AR writings. I don't think I'll be taking much more time on it, Maybe I'll finish AS but I think I'll leave the rest of Fountain Head alone. As far as poker goes, provided you played your hands right there is no reason not to be happy even if the results aren't what you'd like. I'm pretty certain that a ethics system based off of one thing, survival, happiness, or pleasure will certianly be lacking.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are things we want. These are our values,

[/ QUOTE ] Do you wish to make a case that both values and desires are good compasses for ethical actions, or only values, or do you wish to use them interchangeably?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think its useful to label somethng as ethical and others not. I'm choosing what music to listen, no-one else is affected, it doesn't make much sense to call it an ethical decision.

I'm not sure of the best definition (do you have something in mind?) maybe anything that affects the well-being of others

chez

[/ QUOTE ]I'm a little confused. Just was wondering if you make a distinction between values and desires, both seem to fall into the category of wants.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are things we want. These are our values,

[/ QUOTE ] Do you wish to make a case that both values and desires are good compasses for ethical actions, or only values, or do you wish to use them interchangeably?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think its useful to label somethng as ethical and others not. I'm choosing what music to listen, no-one else is affected, it doesn't make much sense to call it an ethical decision.

I'm not sure of the best definition (do you have something in mind?) maybe anything that affects the well-being of others

chez

[/ QUOTE ]I'm a little confused. Just was wondering if you make a distinction between values and desires, both seem to fall into the category of wants.

[/ QUOTE ]
Me too. We value the things we want, so wants and values are two ways of describing the same think. Where did desires come in? (probably me being inconsistent with terminology again), sound like just another word for want.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The only way I WOULDN'T take the happy pill is if I believed that happiness was not the end goal. I don't believe it necessarily is. Although many of my friends are on Prozac type drugs and claim to get substantial relief from them, I would rather stubbornly battle through on my own. Why? Because I have found that happiness in and of itself is not the most important thing to me. Happiness can be overrated. So can misery.

g

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree and wouldn't take the drug. I don't think all we want is to maximise pleasure - if it was then taking the drug is a cinch.

I see taking the drug as a pleasant version of suicide, a killing of ones self. That's not what I want and would only be a last resort.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

I just came across a lecture that says the 89% of mankind has had the same understanding of ehtics. It has been the same % throughout history and cultures. But there has been many different stories about why those ethics are the correct ones. It appears that the actual reason for the ethical beliefs is hidden from the beholder. People aren't able to actually tell you the correct reason why "Thou shall not kill" is correct, but instead invent a story around and that leads to the conclusion of Is is wrong to murder.

[ QUOTE ]
I just came across a lecture that says the 89% of mankind has had the same understanding of ehtics. ... People aren't able to actually tell you the correct reason why "Thou shall not kill" is correct, ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Self-interest as both individuals and communities seems an obvious reason. If I want some form of a satisfying life, it would be silly to say "Murder is fine" unless I want to look over my shoulder, walk around with a loaded gun 24/7, and accept that many friends and family will probably be murdered someday.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree and wouldn't take the drug. I don't think all we want is to maximise pleasure - if it was then taking the drug is a cinch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Happiness, not pleasure. Previous example: I am not experiencing pleasure when I have a root canal, but I can still be happy knowing that it will keep me from having more serious problems later. So, just so we are on the same page, the "happy" pill is not just pleasure... but it is happiness... a deep fulfillment of your inner desires, a joy, peace, contentment.

[ QUOTE ]
I see taking the drug as a pleasant version of suicide, a killing of ones self. That's not what I want and would only be a last resort.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are dead, you are not happy. I don't see how you can say that it would be like death. By definition, we want the things that make us happy. If there is a pill that will make me happy, I would want it. I doubt such a pill exists, but if it did, I would want it. I want that which makes me happy. The only exception I would make would be to sacrifice my own happiness -- or not maximize it -- in order that my loved ones, and/or others not suffer.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just came across a lecture that says the 89% of mankind has had the same understanding of ehtics. ... People aren't able to actually tell you the correct reason why "Thou shall not kill" is correct, ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Self-interest as both individuals and communities seems an obvious reason. If I want some form of a satisfying life, it would be silly to say "Murder is fine" unless I want to look over my shoulder, walk around with a loaded gun 24/7, and accept that many friends and family will probably be murdered someday.

[/ QUOTE ]Cleary you are correct, but you are incorrect to think that everyone else's stories of why it is wrong to murder are any less or more valid than your story. It's not just murder that I'm talking about, it's ethics in general.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just came across a lecture that says the 89% of mankind has had the same understanding of ehtics. ... People aren't able to actually tell you the correct reason why "Thou shall not kill" is correct, ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Self-interest as both individuals and communities seems an obvious reason. If I want some form of a satisfying life, it would be silly to say "Murder is fine" unless I want to look over my shoulder, walk around with a loaded gun 24/7, and accept that many friends and family will probably be murdered someday.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the evolutionist or at least the atheist (perhaps, even some, theists - but would have to think about this more - too tired, right now) it is because of nurture, not nature though, right? I don’t see how the atheist can say otherwise. Am I correct?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just came across a lecture that says the 89% of mankind has had the same understanding of ehtics. ... People aren't able to actually tell you the correct reason why "Thou shall not kill" is correct, ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Self-interest as both individuals and communities seems an obvious reason. If I want some form of a satisfying life, it would be silly to say "Murder is fine" unless I want to look over my shoulder, walk around with a loaded gun 24/7, and accept that many friends and family will probably be murdered someday.

[/ QUOTE ]Cleary you are correct, but you are incorrect to think that everyone else's stories of why it is wrong to murder are any less or more valid than your story. It's not just murder that I'm talking about, it's ethics in general.

[/ QUOTE ]


As would someone be wrong if they said “those who say 'murder is ok' are wrong” (which was how I understood NotReady).

[Peter666]

They're all wrong.

Ethics are derived from our final natural end: death. Morals are derived from our supernatural final end: the Beatific vision.

Society's role is in shaping behaviour thru customs. Customs are not ethically right or wrong in and of themselves. They only seem that way because of repetitive behaviour ingrained into our conciousness.

[ QUOTE ]
For the evolutionist or at least the atheist (perhaps, even some, theists - but would have to think about this more - too tired, right now) it is because of nurture, not nature though, right? I don’t see how the atheist can say otherwise. Am I correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe nature and nurture are necessarily indistinguishable. Instinct can be something that is nurtured for thousands of years until it is basically nature (or am I wrong?, I'm not an evolutionary biologist but nobody taught my dog to try to pretend to bury bones on the carpet when she was 8 weeks old but she still did). I don't see the need to distinguish the difference (nature vs. nurture takes us down so many difficult if not impossible discussions, just like the homosexual debate has gone through many times before).

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just came across a lecture that says the 89% of mankind has had the same understanding of ehtics. ... People aren't able to actually tell you the correct reason why "Thou shall not kill" is correct, ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Self-interest as both individuals and communities seems an obvious reason. If I want some form of a satisfying life, it would be silly to say "Murder is fine" unless I want to look over my shoulder, walk around with a loaded gun 24/7, and accept that many friends and family will probably be murdered someday.

[/ QUOTE ]Cleary you are correct, but you are incorrect to think that everyone else's stories of why it is wrong to murder are any less or more valid than your story. It's not just murder that I'm talking about, it's ethics in general.

[/ QUOTE ]


As would someone be wrong if they said “those who say 'murder is ok' are wrong” (which was how I understood NotReady).

[/ QUOTE ] The important thing that I wish to get across is that some people are gonna say that murder is ethically wrong. They will go to great lenghts to create a story that confirms or agrees with this view. Others will think that murder is OK. They will go to even greater lengths to create a story that confirms or agrees with this view. At least with ethics it appears to be a case of the tail wagging the dog. We "know" the correctness/incorrectness of an action and we then build the reasons up to that knowledge.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
They're all wrong.

Ethics are derived from our final natural end: death. Morals are derived from our supernatural final end: the Beatific vision.

Society's role is in shaping behaviour thru customs. Customs are not ethically right or wrong in and of themselves. They only seem that way because of repetitive behaviour ingrained into our conciousness.

[/ QUOTE ]You, clearly, have gone to the greatest lenghts to verify what you already "know". Chez may be more correct than the rest of us in this regard. You can do no better than to follow your moral feelings. For the healthy person this advice on ethics is all that you need.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Happiness, not pleasure. Previous example: I am not experiencing pleasure when I have a root canal, but I can still be happy knowing that it will keep me from having more serious problems later. So, just so we are on the same page, the "happy" pill is not just pleasure... but it is happiness... a deep fulfillment of your inner desires, a joy, peace, contentment .

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm confused about what you mean. Joy, peace, contentment could be maximised by a drug/machine. The question is whether you would take such an option or is there something else that you value?

[ QUOTE ]
If you are dead, you are not happy. I don't see how you can say that it would be like death.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying it would be like being dead. I would be very very happy but unable to do any of the things that I wanted to do with my life because I will no longer want to do them That's what I mean by suicide.

The pill is a one way deal that makes be maximally happy but destroys everything within me that I valued. I wouldn't take it because maximising my happiness is not the only thing that I want.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused about what you mean. Joy, peace, contentment could be maximised by a drug/machine. The question is whether you would take such an option or is there something else that you value?

[/ QUOTE ]

By definition, I value that which increases my happiness. Why do I value X? Because X increases my happiness. I cannot value something that doesn't increase my happiness. That would be like saying I like something that I don't like. Or that I desire something that I don't want. If you disagree with my definition of "value", then please provide one that shows that you can value something that decreases your happiness.


[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying it would be like being dead. I would be very very happy but unable to do any of the things that I wanted to do with my life because I will no longer want to do them That's what I mean by suicide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... I see what you mean. There are things that you want to do before taking the pill that you would no longer desire to do after taking the pill. You want to do those things, because you think they will make you happy. The pill would maximize your happiness, but very well may take away current desires. But, when you had taken the pill, you wouldn't miss those things. There would be no suffering, since it would be the "old you" that wanted those things, not the "new you". Anyway, this is a fair reason to not take the pill, but for me, I'd take the pill. It's a guaranteed happiness over a possible happiness, and almost certain unhappiness (from other things).

[ QUOTE ]
The pill is a one way deal that makes be maximally happy but destroys everything within me that I valued. I wouldn't take it because maximising my happiness is not the only thing that I want.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think by definition, you do want to maximize your happiness. But, you are attached to those things that you have already decided make you happy (or will make you happy).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
By definition, I value that which increases my happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a bit rum to start from the point of definition. The question is about what we value and I dispute that its happiness in the sense you mean.

I agree that the things we value make us happy but its a huge jump from there to saying that all we value is happiness.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By definition, I value that which increases my happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a bit rum to start from the point of definition. The question is about what we value and I dispute that its happiness in the sense you mean.

I agree that the things we value make us happy but its a huge jump from there to saying that all we value is happiness.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I see both your points, but the argument is somewhat circular, which Kip alludes to. He states "By definition, I value that which increases my happiness." This is a true in the sense that "to value" means that you derive happiness from it. Can you "value" something which does not increase happiness (not pleasure)? I'm not sure.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By definition, I value that which increases my happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a bit rum to start from the point of definition. The question is about what we value and I dispute that its happiness in the sense you mean.

I agree that the things we value make us happy but its a huge jump from there to saying that all we value is happiness.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I see both your points, but the argument is somewhat circular, which Kip alludes to. He states "By definition, I value that which increases my happiness." This is a true in the sense that "to value" means that you derive happiness from it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Trouble is its not up for definition as Kip has made clear what he means by happiness. Ihe question is what do we value and there could be correct answers to this, at least to the extent that its not happines in Kip's sense.


[ QUOTE ]
Can you "value" something which does not increase happiness (not pleasure)? I'm not sure.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm fairly sure you can't value something that doesn't increase happiness but it doesn't follow that you have to value that which brings you the most happiness.

The most creative analogy I can manage is with working for money. I wouldn't work without the reward of money but I wont always do the work that earns the most money.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By definition, I value that which increases my happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a bit rum to start from the point of definition. The question is about what we value and I dispute that its happiness in the sense you mean.

I agree that the things we value make us happy but its a huge jump from there to saying that all we value is happiness.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't provide another definition. I didn't say all we value is happiness. I said we value things because they make us happy. We value X, because X increases our happiness. If X did not increase our happiness, we wouldn't value it. I hope I've made myself clear, but you have still not explained what you mean by "value", if it is different than what I'm saying.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By definition, I value that which increases my happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a bit rum to start from the point of definition. The question is about what we value and I dispute that its happiness in the sense you mean.

I agree that the things we value make us happy but its a huge jump from there to saying that all we value is happiness.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't provide another definition. I didn't say all we value is happiness. I said we value things because they make us happy. We value X, because X increases our happiness. If X did not increase our happiness, we wouldn't value it. I hope I've made myself clear, but you have still not explained what you mean by "value", if it is different than what I'm saying.

[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't made it clear because I'm not sure /images/graemlins/smile.gif

but I think I value things because I'm evolved to want them not because they make me happy. That they make me happy is probably true but its not the reason I value them.

One of the thing I want is to survive, and that includes the survival of my values. That's why I wouldn't take the pill even though it guarantees greater happiness.

so although I'm not sure about the precise nature of what we value, I'm pretty sure its not true that we value X because X makes us happy. In fact, I'd say its the other way round, X makes us happy because we value it.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

Chez is the close to what you mean when you say things about ethics?

The important thing that I wish to get across is that some people are gonna say that murder is ethically wrong. They will go to great lenghts to create a story that confirms or agrees with this view. Others will think that murder is OK. They will go to even greater lengths to create a story that confirms or agrees with this view. We "know" the correctness/incorrectness of an action and we then build the reasons up to that knowledge.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Chez is the close to what you mean when you say things about ethics?

The important thing that I wish to get across is that some people are gonna say that murder is ethically wrong. They will go to great lenghts to create a story that confirms or agrees with this view. Others will think that murder is OK. They will go to even greater lengths to create a story that confirms or agrees with this view. We "know" the correctness/incorrectness of an action and we then build the reasons up to that knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of that goes on, often as a result of confusion and often its a deliberate attempt to mislead others or ourselves. However, its often the correct thing to do. I don't think that we "know' that killing people is wrong but come to "know" it is wrong (or not) via a process like the one you describe

e.g. Killing people is wrong because I value their values and they value being alive.

If I didn't value their values then there is no 'moral value' reason for not killing them though there may be a 'moral rationality' reason for not killing them.

Moral rationality always requires an argument to justify the conclusion. e.g. killing people is wrong because its bad for society which is bad for me.

chez