[quote]pat36 wrote:
That’s why I don not care for ethical philosophy. It has no clear definitions and is the bastard child of philosophy, because deductive reasoning is almost impossible.
[/quote]
I don’t know how you could possibly make this argument. Plato and Aristotle both wrote about the good. Positivist and contemporary “philosophies” are really the bastard children…
One problem with a philosophy, a religion, or any other static work that attempts to guide our behavior is that the situations we face cannot be enumerated in advance.
We, subjectively, must weigh the issues involved and come to a conclusion.
Our problem is not that we don’t have a unified and simple set of ethics that we can all be forced to follow, it is that many people are not being socialized adequately to allow them to develop a shared set of values.
Different values equate to different decisions and hence, increased conflict. This stuff isn’t rocket science…
As far as philosophy of ethics go, I believe to be valid it can’t be grounded in any sort of religious justification. It may have been acceptable pre-enlightenment and many of the conclusions may be the same, but I can’t take seriously any reasoning based on antiquated superstition. Altruism justified by the economics of zero-sum transactions for example is something I consider valid.
Human nature is another aspect that needs to be addressed. Concepts like Hobbes leviathan and capitalism are valid as they touch on human nature as opposed to something entirely abstract. I think the dismal science is a great basis for ethical philosophy.
[quote]bradams wrote:
Just a quick philosophical question for you…
Does anybody ask that works in quantum mechanics be “readable”? If not, then why is it a requirement for ethics?
[/quote]
I would say that it should be made accessible to the layman, especially if their taxes are funding the research or the university where these folks work.
Why leave everything as a mystery? Wouldn’t we want the average person on our side, so to speak, if we were researching an important topic?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
bradams wrote:
Just a quick philosophical question for you…
Does anybody ask that works in quantum mechanics be “readable”? If not, then why is it a requirement for ethics?
I would say that it should be made accessible to the layman, especially if their taxes are funding the research or the university where these folks work.
Why leave everything as a mystery? Wouldn’t we want the average person on our side, so to speak, if we were researching an important topic?
[/quote]
Because they don’t have the answer.
Only enough intellect to camouflage it eloquently.
[quote]vroom wrote:
One problem with a philosophy, a religion, or any other static work that attempts to guide our behavior is that the situations we face cannot be enumerated in advance.
We, subjectively, must weigh the issues involved and come to a conclusion.
Our problem is not that we don’t have a unified and simple set of ethics that we can all be forced to follow, it is that many people are not being socialized adequately to allow them to develop a shared set of values.
Different values equate to different decisions and hence, increased conflict. This stuff isn’t rocket science…[/quote]
Well, the problem I have with the philosophies of William James and John Dewey is that what appears practical today might be a disaster tomorrow. Dewey tried your approach, and it simply created moral relativism.
I agree that we need to develop a shared set of values. But before we launch into that, we need to have clearly defined, practical, and understandable philosophical principles. Let’s face it: The Critique of Practical Reason (Kant) won’t do it. 
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
bradams wrote:
Just a quick philosophical question for you…
Does anybody ask that works in quantum mechanics be “readable”? If not, then why is it a requirement for ethics?
I would say that it should be made accessible to the layman, especially if their taxes are funding the research or the university where these folks work.
Why leave everything as a mystery? Wouldn’t we want the average person on our side, so to speak, if we were researching an important topic?
Because they don’t have the answer.
Only enough intellect to camouflage it eloquently.
[/quote]
Cynic! 
Just joking!!!
Actually, I love explaining calculus to students who always thought that the subject was some ‘outer space, whacked out math stuff’. If only philosophers felt the same — might’ve spared the world a LOT of agony.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Well, the problem I have with the philosophies of William James and John Dewey is that what appears practical today might be a disaster tomorrow. Dewey tried your approach, and it simply created moral relativism.
I agree that we need to develop a shared set of values. But before we launch into that, we need to have clearly defined, practical, and understandable philosophical principles. Let’s face it: The Critique of Practical Reason (Kant) won’t do it.
[/quote]
People like to throw around the term “moral relativism” as if it was a swear word, but like it or not it is something we will forever live within.
If you became an omnipotent dictator, you might be able to impose your particular moral judgment upon humanity, but the fact that you like it wouldn’t mean it was right.
Today, women vote. That is right. Not too long ago, they didn’t. That was considered right.
In the long view it looks like the past was always wrong, when it differs from the accepted present, so why do we try to codify our current viewpoint and attempt to transfer it into the future if we are almost assuredly wrong?
Philosophically, things change… and a social discourse is always taking place that allows changes to propagate or allows changes to be rejected.
Things change. The market of ideas will surely come up with better ideas than those we have today, as well as worse ones.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Things change. The market of ideas will surely come up with better ideas than those we have today, as well as worse ones.[/quote]
Better or worse by what standard? Moral relativism doesn’t admit of “better” or “worse.”
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Better or worse by what standard? Moral relativism doesn’t admit of “better” or “worse.”[/quote]
I’m not sure I agree.
The way it is commonly used people mean that good and bad are subjective… not that they don’t exist, but that they don’t have an absolute definition.
After all, if one thing is not deemed preferable to another, how could one ever make a choice?
[quote]vroom wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Better or worse by what standard? Moral relativism doesn’t admit of “better” or “worse.”
I’m not sure I agree.
The way it is commonly used people mean that good and bad are subjective… not that they don’t exist, but that they don’t have an absolute definition.
After all, if one thing is not deemed preferable to another, how could one ever make a choice?[/quote]
Why don’t we start with Aristotle’s definition of man: To be a man is to be a rational animal (ladies too btw
Then whatever is good is what serves to enhance or preserve us as rational animals — honesty, integrity, and so on.
BTW: I hope that everyone can see now why I like the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Hate her or love her, she fulfilled most of the criteria. Her books are adventure novels, much more readable that works of Hegel, Kant, Schopenhauer (maybe), and company. Her philosophy asks men to be rationally selfish, which most people can do. Finally, her philosophy is less likely to lead to disasters, like Nazi Germany or Communism — though I think she didn’t recognize that hoards of hungry people will eventually vote in a welfare state, which I think is a rational outcome of LF capitalism.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
vroom wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Better or worse by what standard? Moral relativism doesn’t admit of “better” or “worse.”
I’m not sure I agree.
The way it is commonly used people mean that good and bad are subjective… not that they don’t exist, but that they don’t have an absolute definition.
After all, if one thing is not deemed preferable to another, how could one ever make a choice?
Why don’t we start with Aristotle’s definition of man: To be a man is to be a rational animal (ladies too btw
[/quote]
This does not mean anything again: “rationality” as an abstract construct is just as arbitrary as everything else.
Nephorm: better means that, given the utility-function of a given subject, and given the current value of a given activity, then a better activity means that the value of the utility function in the point correspondant to the better activity will be higher than the previous value.
Still, there remains the trouble of figuring out the utility functions of individuals, which is by no means an easy (possibly, impossible) task.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Why don’t we start with Aristotle’s definition of man: To be a man is to be a rational animal (ladies too btw
Then whatever is good is what serves to enhance or preserve us as rational animals — honesty, integrity, and so on.[/quote]
This would seem to elevate thinkers, but throughout history we’ve seen that those that act often are held in more regard than those that think.
Seriously though, I am not certain that making a judgment to pick one aspect of our nature and to elevate it is a good way to start defining a philosophy. For example, compassion and empathy are perhaps desirable even though they may not be rational processes.
We are certainly capable of being rational. I’d suggest that it is this capacity that allows us to attempt to determine which action to take in situations in an attempt to do something that is “good”. It can let us make a choice not driven by emotion or instinct.
Unfortunately, not everyone bothers to try. Again, unfortunately, not everyone will agree on what is good. For some, torturing suspected terrorists is considered a good act. Others, of course, find it bad. In both cases rational thinking can be used to justify the viewpoint.
What makes for “good philosophy” is the philosopher?s ability to make extreme generalizations and at the same time be completely unambiguous about a particular framework. For example, in a philosopher?s explanation of ethics, she must pose questions about the nature of morality or virtue based on what would be considered “universal philosophical truths”–sometimes metaphysical or epistemological. Often times she must define her own terms so as to be as accurate as possible and not stray from her framework. A good example of this would be using utilitarianism to argue the virtue of overthrowing an ‘evil’ dictator to promote democracy.
In a philosophy 101 course I took as a freshman in college the professor explained that a philosopher must not ask questions that make assumptions about philosophical uncertainties–they cannot be self referencing questions–for example, “what is the meaning of life” is an often asked question by the closet sophist. This is an inherently bad question because it makes several assumptions that must be answered before this question can even be asked:
BTW, the answer is 42 in case you are wondering.
In general, philosophers attempt to answer questions of the following type:
Why can’t we have more post like this from you, HH?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Why don’t we start with Aristotle’s definition of man: To be a man is to be a rational animal (ladies too btw
Then whatever is good is what serves to enhance or preserve us as rational animals — honesty, integrity, and so on.
This would seem to elevate thinkers, but throughout history we’ve seen that those that act often are held in more regard than those that think.
Seriously though, I am not certain that making a judgment to pick one aspect of our nature and to elevate it is a good way to start defining a philosophy. For example, compassion and empathy are perhaps desirable even though they may not be rational processes.
[/quote]
There are essential attributes and accidental attributes. Skin color is accidental, for ex. To think forming CONCEPTS is, as Aristotle said, an essential attribute. We are the animal that thinks conceptually. (He’s using rational as a property, not as a state of mental function.)
From a scientific point of view, this seems like an acceptable defining characteristic for us. We all have this property, unless there’s some accident or something like that.
So, whatever preserves or enhances someone as a rational being is THE GOOD. I think this should form the basis for any ethics.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
pat36 wrote:
That’s why I don not care for ethical philosophy. It has no clear definitions and is the bastard child of philosophy, because deductive reasoning is almost impossible.
I don’t know how you could possibly make this argument. Plato and Aristotle both wrote about the good. Positivist and contemporary “philosophies” are really the bastard children…[/quote]
I wasn’t making an argument I was stating an opinion. Because good and evil lack definition is almost imposible to create strong ethical arguments. All ethical arguments can be refuted at some level. That to me makes ethical philosophy a pain in the ass. Metaphysics has always been my favorite as it.
The fact that Plato and Aristotle wrote about the “good” is not relevent to me because they did not define it. Besides I never liked Plato much, I think he talked to much and said very little. The only thing he brought to the table was the notion of “forms” and his famous “Allegory of the Cave”.
Aristotle is another matter all together. That is the purest definition of a mental giant.
[quote]Imen de Naars wrote:
Nephorm: better means that, given the utility-function of a given subject, and given the current value of a given activity, then a better activity means that the value of the utility function in the point correspondant to the better activity will be higher than the previous value.
Still, there remains the trouble of figuring out the utility functions of individuals, which is by no means an easy (possibly, impossible) task.
[/quote]
I’m not a fan of utility function terminology, or Utilitarianism in general. As Constant worried, Utilitarianism is too easily misunderstood as “the ends justify the means,” or interpreted in short sighted ways. Constant pointed out that the principles of liberty are good and useful in and of themselves, and that they needn’t be reevaluated as to their usefulness as circumstances changed.
At any rate, “good for a given purpose” is a poor measure of “good.” Vroom, you asked how one would decide… moral relativism says we can’t decide. Any choice that anyone makes is arbitrarily good or bad… and redefining “useful to others” as good doesn’t solve the problem… it makes it even more difficult. Moral relativism means that you throw your hands in the air at some point and say “well, this is how we’re doing things!” There is no lower or higher… my momentary satisfaction of desire is no less good than everyone else’s long-term happiness.
Utilitarianism isn’t moral relativism, just so we’re clear, btw.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Vroom, you asked how one would decide… moral relativism says we can’t decide.[/quote]
Apparently there never has been and there never will be any true moral relativists then.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
There are essential attributes and accidental attributes. Skin color is accidental, for ex. To think forming CONCEPTS is, as Aristotle said, an essential attribute. We are the animal that thinks conceptually. (He’s using rational as a property, not as a state of mental function.)
From a scientific point of view, this seems like an acceptable defining characteristic for us. We all have this property, unless there’s some accident or something like that.
So, whatever preserves or enhances someone as a rational being is THE GOOD. I think this should form the basis for any ethics.[/quote]
All you are saying is that personally you have found a way to justify your evaluation of thought as important. While I am all for people thinking, and I do value thinking, I still think you are making unsupported judgments to lay the foundation for your “philosophy”.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
There are essential attributes and accidental attributes. Skin color is accidental, for ex. To think forming CONCEPTS is, as Aristotle said, an essential attribute. We are the animal that thinks conceptually. (He’s using rational as a property, not as a state of mental function.)
From a scientific point of view, this seems like an acceptable defining characteristic for us. We all have this property, unless there’s some accident or something like that.
So, whatever preserves or enhances someone as a rational being is THE GOOD. I think this should form the basis for any ethics.
[/quote]
How about lying and stealing? I could steal from a rich man. Just a little, it isn’t going to hurt him or endanger his existence as a rational being, but I could buy philosophical books and protein powder.