You and I ought be working together to show Nickolasgaspar that there is more to ethics than physics. Have you noticed his profile image? The Scientism is strong in this one. — Banno
Again, you have here claimed that the wellbeing of society is what we ought do.
Why? — Banno
-I described what we identify as morality. My system just uses this acknowledgment as a way to produce moral evaluations. Do you have a different opinion on what morality describes in our interactions? Do you believe that we accept acts as moral even if they do not promote the well being of others and our society as a whole?You havn't grounded your moral system, just assumed it. — Banno
Well, no, it doesn't. Morality is about what one ought to do. — Banno
Perhaps we ought abandon the notion of society and instead return to living as wild, individual beasts. Or perhaps for the good of the planet we ought eliminate humanity altogether. — Banno
You've skipped from an is to an ought, without providing a justification. That we are social animals does not imply that we ought to be. — Banno
First of all you seem to ignore the definition of scientism. I am the first to reject the basic premises of Scientistm (1.Science is the only source of knowledge and 2. Science can explain everything).You and I ought be working together to show Nickolasgaspar that there is more to ethics than physics. Have you noticed his profile image? The Scientism is strong in this one. — Banno
Well, true. But it's kind of the default, isn't it? Hasn't evolutionary biology rushed in to fill the vacuum left by the abandonment of traditional creeds? It seems very much taken-for-granted. — Wayfarer
It remains that the choice of creed is yours. It remains that you cannot just dump your moral responsibility on to god, any more than Nickolasgaspar can dump it on the wellbeing of society. — Banno
Which leads us to telling the Nazi's where the Jews are hiding if we know. God forbid we should ever usher in lying. — Tom Storm
SO the first ask is to show folk that ethics is not like physics, and is not a branch of theology nor of biology. — Banno
Unlike yourself, I don't rule out the perspective provided by philosophical theology or religion generally, insofar as they provide a cosmic grounding for ethics. — Wayfarer
Perhaps he interpreted it rigidly, although I find it hard to believe he would be that rigid. To me, what it means is that it's ok for me to set the rules, as long as I'm committed to applying them fairly, including to myself. Especially to myself. — T Clark
So Nazi's win with our help.... — Tom Storm
...insofar as they provide a cosmic grounding for ethics. — Wayfarer
Oh, perhaps not. WIth being part of this-world, creating his own morality, re-embodying amoral aristocratic values, and generally living life as they want, this might as well be the Übermensch:I think the ideology of the Ubermensch is far more suited to fascist authoritarianism than the Critique of Pure Reason. — Wayfarer
AH, so because you did not mention the word ought, you are not telling us what we ought to do. Your claim is that you are telling us only how things are.
If you are not telling us what we ought to do, you are not engaged in a moral discourse.
Hence, your posts are of no use in deciding what we should do.
Ethics is a lot more involved than just a bit of applied biology. — Banno
...because my cynical eye tells me it ain't so; there can be no "cosmic grounding", it has to be all our own work. That's why it is important; if it were all down to god, our choices wouldn't be that important. — Banno
Doesn't matter what Kant would do, it matters what he suggests we should do. People don't generally discount the American Declaration of Independence just because the signers owned slaves. Doesn't mean we should ignore it, but the words matter all by themselves. — T Clark
hey it was Nietszche who was adulated by the Nazis, not Kant. I think the ideology of the Ubermensch is far more suited to fascist authoritarianism than the Critique of Pure Reason. — Wayfarer
Of courseI am not telling you what to do. I am only pointing out what principles appear to be able to produce objective moral judgments. By using those judgements we can objectively figure out what to we ought to do for our acts to be moral. — Nickolasgaspar
It is evident that meaning is constructed as we use words, but further, that our broader "form of life" is a construct. — Banno
Maybe I should have said Kant would recommend you tell the Russian troops where the Ukrainian women are hiding because lying is wrong. — Tom Storm
If rape is wrong because we have agreed it is wrong, it is good when we change our mind. — Hanover
Consider "one ought not steal" versus "one ought eat one's vegetables." — Hanover
Correct, I suggest a method that can help us produce objective moral evaluations based on a common characteristic of known moral judgments.Look again at this. See if you see a problem. You are not telling us what to do, but just how to "figure out what to do"... — Banno
Life is the emergence of meaning. — Wayfarer
-The Null hypothesis doesn't allow precognition to be assumed as part of our Default position for the emergence of life.So this contention that life was 'the outcome of atoms which had no precognition of the end they were achieving' is, shall we say, deeply questionable. — Wayfarer
Correct, I suggest a method that can help us produce objective moral evaluations based on a common characteristic of known moral judgments. — Nickolasgaspar
it is part of the larger consideration of the value of human life, which includes minimizing harm and suffering and maximizing well being. — Fooloso4
Life is the emergence of specific biological process. Meaning is a quality that emerges in specific biological functions (brain functions). — Nickolasgaspar
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.