-->
@3RU7AL
It's not that complicated.How would you act if you were king?How would you act if you were like superman (impervious to human punishment)?How would you act with no established rules or authority?
I don't know.
Should your ethics be justifiable with no appeal to authority?
Posts
Total:
58
-->
@3RU7AL
@Lemming
It's not that complicated.How would you act if you were king?How would you act if you were like superman (impervious to human punishment)?How would you act with no established rules or authority?
The unfortunately truth is that I would probably act in my own self interest first, in the interest of my friends and family next and with at least as much capricious disregard for the needs of others as I do now (probably more). Anything I do now just because I can get away with it I would likely do as a matter of course.
McJagger doesn't have to say please and he isn't even a king or president to say nothing of a kryptonian.
Indeed are any of us really better than McJagger.
-->
@3RU7AL
What about your pre-existing desires? Are those independent of your intention?
-->
@Lemming
...Surely it's bad for a soldier to be physically lacking, but does a merchant who's ventures have paid 'still need physical capability?
I think it is in the merchant's best interest to possess Larsen's "Might is right". Irrespective of physical capability, I think the merchant would have to be held morally responsible for Weena's death if and only if she was there with Weena. IMHO, her wealth does not absolve her from moral responsibilities.
Do you think all the "good intentions" would short-circuit any and all "moral culpability" (requirement for punitive "punishment")?No, people are punished, discriminated against, or even exterminated at times, for 'their or 'societies 'greater good.Even when a mind claims to think of the welfare of others, at times it is instead a twisted branch.examples,Slaves are better suited to the lifestyle of slavery, whether until they become civilized, or because they can not rise above it.Native Americans must be absorbed into our culture, because we believe our society to be superior.A king without any selfish interest favors his second son, and so has his first son taken care of or executed, for the good of his second son, or the nation.Humanity would be better off using eugenics thinks some world leader, and then discriminates against certain groups.A nuclear family is an overall superior form of grouping thinks a politician, and votes against legalizing gay marriage.It goes on and on, and I'm not saying I 'agree with such thoughts, But such is human history and existence.Though I suppose one might argue the examples good intent is flawed.Discrimination is human.
These are useful counter examples to Larsen's "might is right". Moreover, I think being idle is preferable than being an imperialist. At least, I would say so based on the examples you've listed. That said, I would argue that those examples are exactly why everyone should refrain from golden rules in moral dilemmas but that's a different topic for a different time.
-->
@MarkWebberFan
...Surely it's bad for a soldier to be physically lacking, but does a merchant who's ventures have paid 'still need physical capability?I think it is in the merchant's best interest to possess Larsen's "Might is right". Irrespective of physical capability, I think the merchant would have to be held morally responsible for Weena's death if and only if she was there with Weena. IMHO, her wealth does not absolve her from moral responsibilities.
That's a very civic/social minded viewpoint. Can't say I disagree when it's applied 'to nations in which duty and civics to other people is placed in high value and obligation.
These are useful counter examples to Larsen's "might is right". Moreover, I think being idle is preferable than being an imperialist. At least, I would say so based on the examples you've listed. That said, I would argue that those examples are exactly why everyone should refrain from golden rules in moral dilemmas but that's a different topic for a different time. - MarkWebberFan
Developed off where I agreed partly, and disagreed partly with secularmerlin's main point of the forum, whether ethics ought be justifiable without appeal to authority.
Myself saying pretty much saying yes to a degree, people after all 'must have 'some sort of reasoning for what they follow and do in life. What/Why they trust or believe.
'But, I argue it can be 'very primitive, or minimalized, subconscious instinctual habit. To the point people pay it little mind, so long as it 'seems to work, or that they can push the duty of thinking off onto authority, so long as all is going well.
3RU7AL then pointing out, that if the ethical decisions are going 'clearly wrong by causing harm, death, and danger to other people, then oughtn't the person show a greater interest in the soundness of the ethics?
Which I 'do agree with, but the problem is that most people's ethics work well enough, seemingly at least. What with society indoctrinating people into similar ideas of what is culturally acceptable. People habituating themselves to such lifestyles. Most people don't go about causing wild mayhem, thus needing their ethics checked. If they do, they see a psychologist or a jailer.
And then there's also the problem that harm, death, and danger to other people, isn't necessarily a person's ethics malfunctioning from their perspective. What with people having different ideas of what life's all about and such. What goals one should achieve, ethics in relation to others one should have, what value and place other people/s have in the world.
Which brought the topic to the sidebar,
Myself, I'm fairly self interested, rather than community interested. - LemmingThat is a common condition. If it were not for self interest overcoming our sense of empathy would we even need ethics? - secularmerlinDo you think all the "good intentions" would short-circuit any and all "moral culpability" (requirement for punitive "punishment")? - 3RU7AL
And the list of counter examples I gave, arguing that even a person lacking selfish interest, could wreck terrible harm upon others for those other people's own good.
I don't quite agree that they serve as a counter to the "might is right" argument though.
To me "might is right, as, 'always been a flawed statement, that would be truer 'put as,
Might is reality, or 'Force is reality, what.
After all, no matter one's strength, people can possess different beliefs of right and wrong, even if they are weak. So long as they exist anyhow,
Though, one 'would cease to exist by my thinking, if they were killed, tortured to a different frame of mind, or lobotomized.
Existing beings being what assigns meaning to reality by my way of thinking.
Though certain patterns are likely to occur for sentient beings I'd think, that'd call certain realities of life and being good or evil.
. . .
Though as a rule of thumb of a common social perspective, a truism of human nature often, "might is right" works well enough.
People often enough being willing to cheer the victor, rewrite history.
Or as Larson does, view it more philosophically as a desirable attribute and state of what is good for an individual or group.
Bit rambling, but ah well.
edit,
. . .
secularmerlin's main point of the forum, whether ethics ought be justifiable without appeal to authority.
We defer 'medical knowledge to doctors,
Politics to politicians,
Rocket science, to Rocket scientists,
We still have 'some opinion/justification about the medical, politics, rocket science.
But even in very 'free societies, so long as the disease is cured, our rights aren't trampled, the rocket flies.
People don't deem to mind deferring and appealing to authority.
To an extent anyhow,
After all, even if a guy's a rocket scientist, if he builds it out of wood, I'm going to have some questions.
It'd be nice to have the time and wisdom to justify one's ethics as much as ethical authority.
But not everyone has the time or mind for it.
Thus practicality takes place, and it seems reasonable to me, that some people defer 'much of their ethical thought onto someone they see as reliable/trustworthy.
-->
@Lemming
Rocket science and medicine are different from motals in that their effects (ie flying rockets and cured deseases) can be readily measured. Morals on the other hand are mostly subjective and must by necessity start with you and what you consider personally right and wrong. You can say you think a law (moral consensus of society) is immoral. You cannot say a rocket that flies is not a rocket.
-->
@secularmerlin
Hm, I 'do agree with what you say. Subjective morality fellow that I am.
Though some people are rather fixed upon objective morality of the world.
On the 'other hand, my form of being practical, means I treat a large number of moral/ethical questions as though they were objective. Though I don't think they 'actually are, a person's habit is to live by, stick by, some set of rules.
Least unless they're chaotic neutral or possess multiple personalities, I figure.
. . .
Though. . .
'Is morality truly less 'measurable, less subjective than math?
In a 'sense I mean.
If one believes in causation and materialism, then certain material happenings are always going to pan out to the same moral conclusions.
If the exact same actors meet the exact same sets I mean.
It's just that one 'could measure moral conclusions a person would arrive at, as clear as material physics.
I 'think, if we had the right tools to accurately measure everything.
. . .
Are morals 'so subjective?
Lacking 'something to use as a common object, I mean.
Though I still hold to moral nihilism regardless.
People are 'mostly alike, similar DNA, similar senses, planet, culture,
All the more so the more humans homogenize.
edit,
Illusion though that homogenization may be, when it claims and depicts the common morality.
Herd thinking.
-->
@Lemming
Does it answer your question if I tell you that I do not believe that humans possess freewill?
-->
@secularmerlin
We've talked about that before in the past, as I recall, you don't believe in free will.
Though I don't recall the implications of such a conclusion to you, regarding morality.
What 'further conclusions you might reach from that.
. . .
Well, then again, I recall you being against retributive justice.
Which'd imply to me, you think forgivingly towards man, as not guilty or 'all to blame for what they are and their actions.
Though individuals acting out would 'still have to be dealt with.
'Myself I'd think one would fall into a nihilistic interpretation of morality, but being human shrug and turn to practical response to life anyhow.
To my mind though, such a conclusion of a lack of free will undermines solid morality, and one is left with their inclinations of nature and nurture.
Present their case as they like by ego or altruism.
Whatever appeals.
Myself, I find it disorienting.
-->
@Lemming
Ah, those, I posted...
And the list of counter examples I gave...
We defer 'medical knowledge to doctors...
I'm not sure I fully understand you and I think i will need to re-read more to understand what you just wrote. I'm saying that because I don't have much to go on. Well, I think that's all I have at the moment.
We've talked about that before in the past, as I recall, you don't believe in free will.
I do not
Though I don't recall the implications of such a conclusion to you, regarding morality.What 'further conclusions you might reach from that.
That only practical morality need be observed. That "justice" is an artificial construct which lends the understanding that any consequences visited upon someone for wrongdoing has the sole purpose of stopping the wrongdoing rather than "punishment" of the wrongdoer.
. . .Well, then again, I recall you being against retributive justice.Which'd imply to me, you think forgivingly towards man, as not guilty or 'all to blame for what they are and their actions.Though individuals acting out would 'still have to be dealt with.
Thay is correct. In exactly the same way that a rabid dog or a defective mechanical part must be dealt with. It is not a faulty pistons "fault" we do not assign "blame" to an animal who is being effected by a disease such that it has become a danger to others.
'Myself I'd think one would fall into a nihilistic interpretation of morality, but being human shrug and turn to practical response to life anyhow.To my mind though, such a conclusion of a lack of free will undermines solid morality, and one is left with their inclinations of nature and nurture.Present their case as they like by ego or altruism.Whatever appeals.Myself, I find it disorienting.
I am as uncertain how to address the problem of soft nihilism as I am uncertain how to address the problem of soft solipsism but since neither even if true offers any actionable data it becomes unimportant to the discussion.
The answer to that depends on how you define authority. Like previously stated: Is reason or a standard an authority? Or is an authority only such things like agents, gods, governments, etc?
If the former is true, then yes, you would need some kind of authority for your ethical framework to be taken into consideration.
If the latter is true, then no, you would not need some kind of authority for your ethical framework to be taken into consideration.
-->
@MarkWebberFan
What about your pre-existing desires? Are those independent of your intention?
Every action is in service of some desire.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Is reason or a standard an authority?
Well, an appeal to reason is an appeal to LOGOS.
And an appeal to authority is a common logical fallacy (DOGMA).
-->
@secularmerlin
That only practical morality need be observed. That "justice" is an artificial construct which lends the understanding that any consequences visited upon someone for wrongdoing has the sole purpose of stopping the wrongdoing rather than "punishment" of the wrongdoer.
This explains "the brain and the law" as well as anything I've run across so far, https://youtu.be/753cCnAXR6E?t=38
-->
@Lemming
This explains "the brain and the law" as well as anything I've run across so far, https://youtu.be/753cCnAXR6E?t=38
-->
@Lemming
Or as Larson does, view it more philosophically as a desirable attribute and state of what is good for an individual or group.
There was a farmer who one day left his stable door ajar and his horse wandered away.
His neighbor notes, "it is a terrible thing that you forgot to secure your stable, for now you have lost your only horse."
The farmer doesn't reply.
A few days later his horse returned with a wild horse.
His neighbor is surprised and exclaims, "it is a wonderful thing that you forgot to secure your stable! Because now you have two horses!"
The farmer doesn't reply.
A week later the farmer's son is training the new horse and is thrown onto a rock and breaks his leg.
The neighbor sympathetically comments, "it is a terrible thing that you forgot to secure your stable, because now your son is lame."
The farmer doesn't reply.
The next year their king declares war and forcibly recruits all of the able bodied young men to fight.
The neighbor chuckles, "it is a wonderful thing that you forgot to secure your stable, because your son, being lame, will not have to face the horrors of battle."
The farmer doesn't reply.
-->
@3RU7AL
I've heard that story before, it's an interesting one.
-->
@Lemming
How does one measure whether any particular event is "good" or "bad"?
-->
@3RU7AL
Don't know myself, subjectively, objectively, standards set, norms, goals, ideals. Maybe.
When I heard that story it was from a coworker in a psych ward, I believe he told it as a way to encourage some people that how they look at a situation would effect how it effected them, how they'd feel about it.
-->
@Lemming
Don't know myself, subjectively, objectively, standards set, norms, goals, ideals. Maybe.
How can you "do good" if you have no way of reliably detecting "good"?
-->
@3RU7AL
Eh, I'm a moral nihilist, there is no good, just apparent/practical/habitual 'good.
I'm fond of doing well by and for myself, and to an extent, other people.
It's enough for a rough direction, same way in Oregon I know West is roughly the direction of the closest ocean.
-->
@Lemming
That sounds more like Gnosticism to me (let thine own conscience be thy guide).
"Moral Nihilism" sounds like you reject all axiology (not very practical).
-->
@3RU7AL
One could make an intellectual conclusion that Moral Nihilism is 'true, I think.
Without it being the defining force of their pursuits.
If I was to define my pursuits, I'm not sure what I'd say.
Hedonism perhaps, Existentialism, Aesthetics, Tradition, Culture, Conscience, bit of a mess perhaps.
-->
@Lemming
Hedonism perhaps, Existentialism, Aesthetics, Tradition, Culture, Conscience, bit of a mess perhaps.
As long as you consider yourself the "ultimate authority" on all matters related to "meaning", you are essentially a Gnostic.
-->
@3RU7AL
I couldn't say, currently.