How can we say what ethics is and what the basis of obligation is if we don't understand what it is about a person that makes ethics even possible?
A fair question, and then some. — Astrophel
I think the reason for Spinoza's expulsion by the Jewish community was because his philosophy bypassed the need for the traditional religious authorities by teaching a 'direct path' type of approach. — Wayfarer
As I have said, for me ethics is what happens when we try to cope with living with others. Ethics is only possible with others. We can't go any deeper without making stuff up or drawing from presuppositional theology or some other suspect meta-narrative — Tom Storm
He follows approaches that hold onto a religious metaphysics, albeit of a progressive and heretical kind. — Joshs
Now we know that they have all sorts of perceptual and recognition skills, including being able to empathize with others. Again, without such an appreciation of the infant’s perspective, ethical treatment of them is limited. I would argue the entire history of culture involves the growth of insights into how others unlike ourselves think and feel. — Joshs
1.) The true object is not in the same system as affectivity and its structure. The true object is an effect on the system such that the system is affected by it. The true object is external to the system it affects. — Mww
1.) The true object is not in the same system as affectivity and its structure. The true object is an effect on the system such that the system is affected by it. The true object is external to the system it affects.
2.) It is implied that the true object and the qualified existent are indistinguishable. While it may be necessary that a true object is an existent, it remains that there are no conditions under which its qualities are given from its mere existence. — Mww
3.) Phenomena are the affects of true objects on the system of sensibility in humans. If it is the case that no qualities are given from a mere existence, and mere existence is necessary for phenomena as affects of those true objects, then it follows that qualities do not belong to phenomena. — Mww
4.) Because qualities are determinable, but cannot belong to phenomena as an element in a system of sensibility, it follows that qualities are determinable by a method in a system which is itself affected by phenomena. — Mww
5.) Deliciousness does not belong to, is not a quality of, phenomena. The true object that effects, and the qualified existent that is an affect, are in fact distinguishable. Deliciousness, and all qualities, cannot be determined from a given object by sensibility, but must arise from a system incorporating a method capable of it, such that qualities can be determinable as relating to an object. — Mww
Might it be that the entirety of phenomenal possibilities we classify as valuable serve as essence of ethics? In which case, consequentialism holds. But if we classify something as valuable, value is then a contingent assignment, and cannot be existential in that to which we assign the value, so consequentialism fails. — Mww
When there are a myriad of reasons for any of those existential matters of fact.....how is it possible to assign value merely because of an immediate observation? If the kids were lactose intolerant, if the whole family had just left the house they were in the process of remodeling, if nothing on the menu suited their tastes......all sufficiently explain what I observed, but do not necessarily explain why I paid for the dining occasion.
Nahhhh.....my ethical contribution was the consequence of my having already assigned the value of “deserving” as an aesthetic judgement, which may have been an affect of my observations, but cannot thereby be predicated on them alone. I judged them as deserving because I related that value in that instance, to another in which it was absent. It follows that the observation, the phenomenal experience, was valuable, in that it elicited an assignable value to my ethical act, but contained no predicate value in itself.
Again, the consequentialist ethics was given in the act; the cause of it was not. — Mww
I think I see what you are talking about, although these things are not so real to me, living in a totally different society than yours. Anyway, to stick to our subject of ethics and well-beingness, I could say that each country thinks more about its own good than the good of the world, even if Unions of countries are created for supporting each other. For example, I don't think that Germany as a state thinks more about the good of the EU than about its own. And I also think it's not the only one. This is what I call "lack of ethics". In other words, we cannot talki about ethics on a social plane. Ethics is a personal think. — Alkis Piskas
As I have said, for me ethics is what happens when we try to cope with living with others. Ethics is only possible with others.
— Tom Storm
:100: — 180 Proof
I don't think that the world will ever be morally leveled out ... At least, this what the trends show. Besides, how can it be? The main force and drive of morality comes from religion. However, all the dogmatic religions, including Christianity, have evidently failed. At least "in numbers". No other institution is responsible for inspiring and promoting morality. What remains is the morality that is innate in humans. And this is obviously theatened more and more by all sorts of immoral forces or factors. Immorality is generally much stronger than morality. A single criminal or bad-intended act can destroy, in a very short time, what hundreds of commendable or well-intended acts have created in years.One cannot live a life like this, as if unless the world is morally leveled out — Astrophel
Why's that? I believe that you can do a lot for yourself and your family.I can't do anything for my self and family. — Astrophel
I can't see why, either ... I don't think we should, anyway.And we get into the habit of ignoring others ... — Astrophel
I don't think we can draw such line. Also, I don't think that etchics are especially connected to duty. Doing our duty can be the result of inherent ethics, but also of being forced to for various reasons. The bottom line is that an ethical behaviour benefits everyone, ouselves and others. Independently of what happens in our environment. External consitions should not dictate ethical behaviour.Where does the ethical call to duty draw its line? — Astrophel
The Golden Rule: Treat others like you would like to be treated. Others, yes, but only in terms of you. — Agent Smith
not to read it in concrete terms. — Tom Storm
Qualities ARE phenomena. This cup is red, and the red predicated of the cup is the quality, and it has, arguably, intuitive presence, and AS presence, there is nothing more "real". Husserl went Cartesian on this. He thought the the world out there of facts and science and the naturalistic attitude were a kind of second order of reals, for these issued from a foundation of intuitions, and these intuitions were absolute, unassailable, as say, something Descartes evil genius might try — Astrophel
Yes. WE.....are. Not another thing not us. It is we alone that is affected and exhibit affectivity. All else is merely occasion for it. — Mww
Yes. WE.....are. Not another thing not us. It is we alone that is affected and exhibit affectivity. All else is merely occasion for it. — Mww
Do you have any reservations about this vocabulary — that we classify something as valuable or assign it value? — Srap Tasmaner
I have no reservations, no, but the vocabulary is reserved for representing the conceptions of speculative metaphysics, in order to separate value as a quality from value as a purpose. — Mww
, I am wary of the feeling that comes along with this that there is something arbitrary about the relation between the individual and the purpose they pursue, the feeling that we ought generally to think of purposes as choices or preferences. That feels weak to me. Oxygen is useful and valuable relative to the purpose of the respiratory system, which is in turn useful and valuable relative to the purpose of remaining a going concern. Swell. But that’s not a choice or a preference in any simplistic way. (And I want to say that, the fact that we can choose to prevent ourselves from breathing, doesn’t mean that each moment we don’t we must have chosen to continue. Bollocks.) — Srap Tasmaner
As I have said, for me ethics is what happens when we try to cope with living with others. Ethics is only possible with others. — Tom Storm
My understanding of the golden rule is not to read it in concrete terms. It is not saying that you need to assume people share your preferences exactly. It is saying treat others with the consideration you would appreciate - honour their preferences as you would want them to honour yours. That and in general terms almost all people do not want to be stolen from, lied to, framed or murdered - so there is that. — Tom Storm
I thought I would butt in here to clarify some things. Would you agree with the following? Our ability to act ethically with others evolves as a function of cultural development. To use an analogy, not too long ago it was assumed that animals had no emotions or cognition and did not feel pain. It s hard to act ‘ethically’ toward a creature when you dont see them as having any of these capabilities. Another example : we used to think that infants were a blooming, buzzing confusion. Now we know that they have all sorts of perceptual and recognition skills, including being able to empathize with others. Again, without such an appreciation of the infant’s perspective, ethical treatment of them is limited. I would argue the entire history of culture involves the growth of insights into how others unlike ourselves think and feel. — Joshs
↪Agent Smith :point: ↪180 Proof ... What you find harmful, do not do to anyone. :fire: — 180 Proof
A day-old infant has very limited cognition skills. So, by your logic, ethical treatment of very young infants should likewise be limited — SophistiCat
I am weary of the answer to every question being “it’s purpose-relative”. — Srap Tasmaner
Given your purpose, the world presents itself to you a certain way, things announce their suitability or insuitability to your purpose, or occasionally, but not universally, as ambiguous, requiring reflection. — Srap Tasmaner
At some point, the world and the things in it must be understood in a certain way — Srap Tasmaner
Explain
1. The Golden rule (concrete).
2. The Golden rule (abstract). — Agent Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.