|
|
#1
10-26-2005, 04:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Ehitcs revisted
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. 
|
|
#3
10-26-2005, 05:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ehitcs revisted
[ 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.
|
|
#4
10-26-2005, 05:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ehitcs revisted
[ 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
|
|
#5
10-26-2005, 05:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ehitcs revisted
"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.
|
|
#7
10-26-2005, 05:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ehitcs revisted
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.
|
|
#8
10-26-2005, 06:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ehitcs revisted
[ 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?
|
|
#9
10-26-2005, 06:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ehitcs revisted
[ 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
|
|
#10
10-26-2005, 08:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ehitcs revisted
[ 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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
