On Ethics

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]
I think we should be skeptic about all moral concept and basically all information/knowledge. We can be skeptical that morality even exists. Why not just settle with solipsism? We can be skeptical about all of our senses, colors sounds, taste, feel is all subjective and a matter of interpretation.

What is sour? Does a lemon have sourness to it’s taste? A lemon is sour relative to what? You seem to have to be skeptical that a lemon is even sour, as you cannot even say that the average person experiences eating pure lemon and the taste of sourness due to the level of skepticism you have, because there is no medium or average in people that is in general common amongst humans. You can’t even say a person has a mental disorder with your level of skepticism, because it would be a mental disorder based on what? You cannot call someone mentally disabled unless you buy into an idea that a basic normality exists.

And it is supposed to be based on conclusions we can make about the knowledge we have acquired since Aristotle’s time. What he based virtue theory off of were his own observations in nature and very rudimentary biologic conclusions a LOOOONG time ago, Western biology was born in Virtue Theory. His form of morality is actually a good example of atheistic morality as it’s not rooted in anything but knowledge. [/quote]

I’m perfectly fine with christian moral code, thank you. I don’t need an atheistic moral code. I am christian mainly by cultural affiliation, but I have no need to break those ties. If you want an aristotelian moral code, go ahead. What do you need antropology, evolution and biology for? To convince yourself that it’s ok to follow Aristotles rules for good living?

Why do we have moral codes? Is there an universal transcendental code? What was mans first code like? Has it evolved? Can we find a common denominator for various moral codes across time and space? Why do some people follow their code to the utmost, when it clearly is against their best interests to do so? How to define morality, what does it entail? Why is it so important for some atheists to find a moral code that has nothing to do with christianity?
These I find to be interesting questions.

62

What are y’all’s thoughts toward rational egoism as an ethical paradigm?

63

[quote]Bismark wrote:
What are y’all’s thoughts toward rational egoism as an ethical paradigm?[/quote]

Sign of our times. To freely translate a finnish expression it

suits the hand like a leather glove.

64

[quote]Bismark wrote:
What are y’all’s thoughts toward rational egoism as an ethical paradigm?[/quote]

Rational egoism is an oxymoron.

There is zero reason to think that I have more value than the rest of the universe.

What we call “rational egoism” is simply “sustainable egoism” or “renewable egoism”. It’s less stupid than short-sighted egoism. But calling it “rational” is a stretch.

Strictly speaking, egoism probably the most childishly irrational paradigm one can have.

Technically, even nihilism is more rational…

65

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
What are y’all’s thoughts toward rational egoism as an ethical paradigm?[/quote]

Rational egoism is an oxymoron.

There is zero reason to think that I have more value than the rest of the universe.

What we call “rational egoism” is simply “sustainable egoism” or “renewable egoism”. It’s less stupid than short-sighted egoism. But calling it “rational” is a stretch.

Strictly speaking, egoism probably the most childishly irrational paradigm one can have.

Technically, even nihilism is more rational… [/quote]

I’m curious what you think about epistemological and moral nihilism?

My thoughts:

I don’t believe man is inherently “good” or “altruistic.” I’m not a transcendentalist. But I do believe in a transcendental moral order. If I did not believe as such, I would consider epistemological and moral nihilism to be highly rational. In fact, I would consider myself to be a nihilist were I to doubt my faith.

66

[quote]Bismark wrote:
What are y’all’s thoughts toward rational egoism as an ethical paradigm?[/quote]

How does it differ from psychopathy?

67

Secular humanism versus nihilism:

Edit: Of course the Joker wins the argument because Batman is unable to point to a transcendent moral order as the basis for why the Joker should do A instead of B.

68

[quote]

I’m curious what you think about epistemological and moral nihilism?

My thoughts:

I don’t believe man is inherently “good” or “altruistic.” I’m not a transcendentalist. But I do believe in a transcendental moral order. If I did not believe as such, I would consider epistemological and moral nihilism to be highly rational. In fact, I would consider myself to be a nihilist were I to doubt my faith.[/quote]

A rational mind will want to know what ought to be.

But he won’t be able to apply his usual rationality on ethical matters.
Because you can’t infer what ought to be from what is.

For this reason, a rational mind will find no hint, trace or proof of objective value in the universe.

At this point, nihilism would be a quite logical conclusion.

But it’s obviously an unpractical one.
So, most rational minds will choose one of the two irrational-but-practical solutions.
-the “leap of faith” : “there is no proof of the existence of objective value, but let’s hope the absolutist tenets of my chosen faith are correct”.
-the tao of egoism : “there is no proof of the existence of objective value, so let’s enjoy and enforce my own subjective value”.

the rational solution is to accept the limitations of our ethical knowledge and to opt for a metaphysical version of the precautionary principle :

when in doubt (ie : always), assume everything may have an objective infinite value and respect it to the best of your ability.

69

^^Good answer…except for one thing. “Practical” assumes your own life or that of others has some value. That constitutes a “leap of faith” of no less significance than mine.

70

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^Good answer…except for one thing. “Practical” assumes your own life or that of others has some value. That constitutes a “leap of faith” of no less significance than mine.[/quote]

What I mean is that, in practice, no one can be an ethical nihilist.

it’s a concrete impossibility :

You can always think and say “there is no such thing as a value”.
But, whether you acknowledge it or not, your actions will always betray some system of value.

You simply can’t act upon moral agnosticism or moral nihilism.

71

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^Good answer…except for one thing. “Practical” assumes your own life or that of others has some value. That constitutes a “leap of faith” of no less significance than mine.[/quote]

What I mean is that, in practice, no one can be an ethical nihilist.

it’s a concrete impossibility :

You can always think and say “there is no such thing as a value”.
But, whether you acknowledge it or not, your actions will always betray some system of value.

You simply can’t act upon moral agnosticism or moral nihilism.[/quote]

I get your point. The Joker describes himself as “an agent of chaos” - it would seem the only “value” he has is the creation of disorder, ie the annihilation of the value systems of the civil society. This is pretty close to moral nihilism. To quote Oppenheimer on the Bhagavad Gita: “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” If one’s only value is the act of annihilation itself then one is a true nihilist.

72

In a political sense a nihilist is someone for whom revolution is not a means to an end, but rather an end in and of itself. When a faction with nihilist tendencies usurps the state they direct the revolution outwards - as the French revolutionaries did; as the Nazis did and as Islamic fundamentalists would do.

73

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
@Severiano

Good video about solipsism:

Worth watching.[/quote]

Good vid. Do you think I misused the word? I’m referring to the Cartesian sense where we eventually boil down to not even trusting our own senses… Or a Solipsism of the metaphysical sort. I don’t believe he is on the right track at all relating solipsism to lack of faith. I’m the perfect example that he’s wrong. :smiley:

74

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]
I think we should be skeptic about all moral concept and basically all information/knowledge. We can be skeptical that morality even exists. Why not just settle with solipsism? We can be skeptical about all of our senses, colors sounds, taste, feel is all subjective and a matter of interpretation.Ã??Ã?Â

What is sour? Does a lemon have sourness to it’s taste? A lemon is sour relative to what? You seem to have to be skeptical that a lemon is even sour, as you cannot even say that the average person experiences eating pure lemon and the taste of sourness due to the level of skepticism you have, because there is no medium or average in people that is in general common amongst humans. You can’t even say a person has a mental disorder with your level of skepticism, because it would be a mental disorder based on what? You cannot call someone mentally disabled unless you buy into an idea that a basic normality exists.Ã??Ã?Â

And it is supposed to be based on conclusions we can make about the knowledge we have acquired since Aristotle’s time. What he based virtue theory off of were his own observations in nature and very rudimentary biologic conclusions a LOOOONG time ago, Western biology was born in Virtue Theory. His form of morality is actually a good example of atheistic morality as it’s not rooted in anything but knowledge.Ã??Ã? [/quote]

I’m perfectly fine with christian moral code, thank you. I don’t need an atheistic moral code. I am christian mainly by cultural affiliation, but I have no need to break those ties. If you want an aristotelian moral code, go ahead. What do you need antropology, evolution and biology for? To convince yourself that it’s ok to follow Aristotles rules for good living?

Why do we have moral codes? Is there an universal transcendental code? What was mans first code like? Has it evolved? Can we find a common denominator for various moral codes across time and space? Why do some people follow their code to the utmost, when it clearly is against their best interests to do so? How to define morality, what does it entail? Why is it so important for some atheists to find a moral code that has nothing to do with christianity?
These I find to be interesting questions.[/quote]

You are too much of a skeptic to worry about how moral codes came about, so why worry about it? Why do I need Atheism for morality? I don’t! I rely on reason. The beautiful thing about my morality is it can change with knowledge and it can be critiqued and corrected with reason. Why do you need God for morality? Your morality is supposed to be rigid, but every now and then various heads of churches make amends because their views become wildly unpopular and sometimes overtly immoral. I have some great examples I can share if you like from multiple faiths.

Aristotles ethics pre-date Christianity itself, so the real question is why do you need God, faith, leaps and other mumbo jumbo not based on reason or knowledge?

You are skeptic, yet you rely on books and ethics passed down from faith. You likely wouldn’t be the religion you are now had you been born somewhere else. So if you stake your morality on that, you might be fucked if you happened to be born in the wrong place and are Islam or Hindi or Sikh etc.

Kant formulated an ethics based on reason that is still Christian, which I think is quite coherent, as have a vast majority of people religious and otherwise who have dabbled in his works.

All I have done is simply use Aristotles virtue theory and make an attempt to update it, and correct it with things based on knowledge. Things we have discovered that you don’t believe in such as baselines… Remember it is you who does not believe there can be baselines which leaves you in the dilemma of even buying into the idea that someone can be mentally ill.

75

[quote]Severiano wrote:

You are too much of a skeptic to worry about how moral codes came about, so why worry about it? Why do I need Atheism for morality? I don’t! I rely on reason. The beautiful thing about my morality is it can change with knowledge and it can be critiqued and corrected with reason. Why do you need God for morality? Your morality is supposed to be rigid, but every now and then various heads of churches make amends because their views become wildly unpopular and sometimes overtly immoral. I have some great examples I can share if you like from multiple faiths.

Aristotles ethics pre-date Christianity itself, so the real question is why do you need God, faith, leaps and other mumbo jumbo not based on reason or knowledge?

You are skeptic, yet you rely on books and ethics passed down from faith. You likely wouldn’t be the religion you are now had you been born somewhere else. So if you stake your morality on that, you might be fucked if you happened to be born in the wrong place and are Islam or Hindi or Sikh etc.

Kant formulated an ethics based on reason that is still Christian, which I think is quite coherent, as have a vast majority of people religious and otherwise who have dabbled in his works.

All I have done is simply use Aristotles virtue theory and make an attempt to update it, and correct it with things based on knowledge. Things we have discovered that you don’t believe in such as baselines… Remember it is you who does not believe there can be baselines which leaves you in the dilemma of even buying into the idea that someone can be mentally ill.

[/quote]

I learned all the essentials about morals and ethics before I was 10. All the rest is just icing on the cake. Moral codes and such, are cerebral cortex activity. Morality at base level is not cerebral activity. The morals I express in life was learned by example and reciprocity, nobody can teach it unless they show by example. I learned morals way before I learned to conceptualize.

Christian morals is the moral code I learned in Sunday school. Itâ??s the watered down secular christianity everybody seems to hate nowadays, sloppy as it is and pointing in a general direction. Itâ??s just perfect as a common moral code for westerners. No need to reinvent the wheel, unless one is averse to christianity itself. I am fine with my cultural heritage. The existence or non-existence of a god is irrelevant, as far Iâ??m concerned.

There is no universal moral code that can be â??foundâ?? by analysis like natural laws have been found. There is no provable universal transcendental moral code. But still, an egoistic moral code tries to show why egoism is more beneficial to everybody than altruism. Why does it do that? Hmm. Because we know what is right and what is wrong. We all have been children and learned the stuff first hand, regardless of if we follow the rules later in life. A moral code is simply a conceptualization of those early rules. Therefore it also isnâ??t universal, there are variations and interpretations. Therefore you have no use of any sciences if you want to find it’s essence, sciences are useful only if you are interested in morality as a phenomena.

Mental illness is a different topic and Iâ??ll just let it be. I think the central parts have been iterated at least once, at least on my part. I have an uneasy feeling that you haven’t really understood much of what I have said.

76

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

You are too much of a skeptic to worry about how moral codes came about, so why worry about it? Why do I need Atheism for morality? I don’t! I rely on reason. The beautiful thing about my morality is it can change with knowledge and it can be critiqued and corrected with reason. Why do you need God for morality? Your morality is supposed to be rigid, but every now and then various heads of churches make amends because their views become wildly unpopular and sometimes overtly immoral. I have some great examples I can share if you like from multiple faiths.

Aristotles ethics pre-date Christianity itself, so the real question is why do you need God, faith, leaps and other mumbo jumbo not based on reason or knowledge?

You are skeptic, yet you rely on books and ethics passed down from faith. You likely wouldn’t be the religion you are now had you been born somewhere else. So if you stake your morality on that, you might be fucked if you happened to be born in the wrong place and are Islam or Hindi or Sikh etc.

Kant formulated an ethics based on reason that is still Christian, which I think is quite coherent, as have a vast majority of people religious and otherwise who have dabbled in his works.

All I have done is simply use Aristotles virtue theory and make an attempt to update it, and correct it with things based on knowledge. Things we have discovered that you don’t believe in such as baselines… Remember it is you who does not believe there can be baselines which leaves you in the dilemma of even buying into the idea that someone can be mentally ill.

[/quote]

I learned all the essentials about morals and ethics before I was 10. All the rest is just icing on the cake. Moral codes and such, are cerebral cortex activity. Morality at base level is not cerebral activity. The morals I express in life was learned by example and reciprocity, nobody can teach it unless they show by example. I learned morals way before I learned to conceptualize.

Christian morals is the moral code I learned in Sunday school. It�¢??s the watered down secular christianity everybody seems to hate nowadays, sloppy as it is and pointing in a general direction. It�¢??s just perfect as a common moral code for westerners. No need to reinvent the wheel, unless one is averse to christianity itself. I am fine with my cultural heritage. The existence or non-existence of a god is irrelevant, as far I�¢??m concerned.

There is no universal moral code that can be Ã?¢??foundÃ?¢?? by analysis like natural laws have been found. There is no provable universal transcendental moral code. But still, an egoistic moral code tries to show why egoism is more beneficial to everybody than altruism. Why does it do that? Hmm. Because we know what is right and what is wrong. We all have been children and learned the stuff first hand, regardless of if we follow the rules later in life. A moral code is simply a conceptualization of those early rules. Therefore it also isnÃ?¢??t universal, there are variations and interpretations. Therefore you have no use of any sciences if you want to find it’s essence, sciences are useful only if you are interested in morality as a phenomena.

Mental illness is a different topic and IÃ?¢??ll just let it be. I think the central parts have been iterated at least once, at least on my part. I have an uneasy feeling that you haven’t really understood much of what I have said.[/quote]

Your moral code is based on Tabula Raza, the idea that we are all born blank slates and as we go through life we learn and chisel ourselves into good beings. This is actually an idea of Aristles as well, which Aquinas brought over to the Church along with the idea of using reason rather than faith when applicable, also the idea of using reason to understand God. Go ahead and look it up… This was actually discussed on these forums some time ago.

So, what you call, “Western Ethics” can be traced to Greek ethics and, “The Philosopher.” AKA Aristotle.

77

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

You are too much of a skeptic to worry about how moral codes came about, so why worry about it? Why do I need Atheism for morality? I don’t! I rely on reason. The beautiful thing about my morality is it can change with knowledge and it can be critiqued and corrected with reason. Why do you need God for morality? Your morality is supposed to be rigid, but every now and then various heads of churches make amends because their views become wildly unpopular and sometimes overtly immoral. I have some great examples I can share if you like from multiple faiths.

Aristotles ethics pre-date Christianity itself, so the real question is why do you need God, faith, leaps and other mumbo jumbo not based on reason or knowledge?

You are skeptic, yet you rely on books and ethics passed down from faith. You likely wouldn’t be the religion you are now had you been born somewhere else. So if you stake your morality on that, you might be fucked if you happened to be born in the wrong place and are Islam or Hindi or Sikh etc.

Kant formulated an ethics based on reason that is still Christian, which I think is quite coherent, as have a vast majority of people religious and otherwise who have dabbled in his works.

All I have done is simply use Aristotles virtue theory and make an attempt to update it, and correct it with things based on knowledge. Things we have discovered that you don’t believe in such as baselines… Remember it is you who does not believe there can be baselines which leaves you in the dilemma of even buying into the idea that someone can be mentally ill.

[/quote]

I learned all the essentials about morals and ethics before I was 10. All the rest is just icing on the cake. Moral codes and such, are cerebral cortex activity. Morality at base level is not cerebral activity. The morals I express in life was learned by example and reciprocity, nobody can teach it unless they show by example. I learned morals way before I learned to conceptualize.

Christian morals is the moral code I learned in Sunday school. It�?�¢??s the watered down secular christianity everybody seems to hate nowadays, sloppy as it is and pointing in a general direction. It�?�¢??s just perfect as a common moral code for westerners. No need to reinvent the wheel, unless one is averse to christianity itself. I am fine with my cultural heritage. The existence or non-existence of a god is irrelevant, as far I�?�¢??m concerned.

There is no universal moral code that can be Ã??Ã?¢??foundÃ??Ã?¢?? by analysis like natural laws have been found. There is no provable universal transcendental moral code. But still, an egoistic moral code tries to show why egoism is more beneficial to everybody than altruism. Why does it do that? Hmm. Because we know what is right and what is wrong. We all have been children and learned the stuff first hand, regardless of if we follow the rules later in life. A moral code is simply a conceptualization of those early rules. Therefore it also isnÃ??Ã?¢??t universal, there are variations and interpretations. Therefore you have no use of any sciences if you want to find it’s essence, sciences are useful only if you are interested in morality as a phenomena.

Mental illness is a different topic and IÃ??Ã?¢??ll just let it be. I think the central parts have been iterated at least once, vat least on my part. I have an uneasy feeling that you haven’t really understood much of what I have said.[/quote]

Your moral code is based on Tabula Raza, the idea that we are all born blank slates and as we go through life we learn and chisel ourselves into good beings. This is actually an idea of Aristles as well, which Aquinas brought over to the Church along with the idea of using reason rather than faith when applicable, also the idea of using reason to understand God. Go ahead and look it up… This was actually discussed on these forums some time ago.

So, what you call, “Western Ethics” can be traced to Greek ethics and, “The Philosopher.” AKA Aristotle.
[/quote]

Still didn’t read what I said. Nevermind, it’s no big deal. Peace.

78

What ethical paradigm should guide statecraft?

79

[quote]Bismark wrote:
What ethical paradigm should guide statecraft? [/quote]

Rational self interest. Ethics really has no place in international relations. Nation states are in a constant state of war with each other - the state of nature.

80

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
What ethical paradigm should guide statecraft? [/quote]

Rational self interest. Ethics really has no place in international relations. Nation states are in a constant state of war with each other - the state of nature.[/quote]

It’s funny how we can use rationality and ethics to understand why societies come together and form in the first place, yet you a religious person rely on social Darwinism as if it’s deterministic.

The thing about us as humans is we have foresight, and we are rational. Greed is one of the things we can use our rationality to recognize as something unhealthy.

When we can clearly see our downfall down the road (at least I do) tied to lack of land, and resources, while the demand for both increases, and we continue to buy into dogmas that preach to be fruitful it’s no longer about social Darwinism but about us as a species ignoring our rationality which informs us we cannot continue living this way, at least if we give a shit about how our children and future generations will have to live.

Dogma when it comes to ethics, social Darwinism when it comes to conduct… About the stupidest most myopic combination possible, and you see so many of us making that choice.