Ehitcs revisted

[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.