I would say, not quite accurate. You have put forward a particular ethical theory. Ethics in philosophy is the study of such theories and there are many types. So when you look at your own theory and then list its advantages and disadvantages and the challenges that it might encounter, then you are studying ethics. Whether or not you choose to study ethics is entirely separate from the question whether you are 'ethical' in the sense of being a good person. — Cuthbert
I feel I understand exactly how to go about being ethical. Its a rather simple formula: do nothing to sabotage that which is preceived as the highest common interest of all sentient beings. — XanderTheGrey
Whether or not you choose to study ethics is entirely separate from the question whether you are 'ethical' in the sense of being a good person. — Cuthbert
"Try to see people as they are and try to treat them with good will and compassion." — T Clark
This is actually embarrassing to ask because I feel I understand exactly how to go about being ethical. Its a rather simple formula: do nothing to sabotage that which is preceived as the highest common interest of all sentient beings. — XanderTheGrey
Thats entirely to vague for me, even if its merely a suggestion, and not an attempt to define ethics. — XanderTheGrey
Perhaps, but now you have identified the "good" with "highest common interest of all sentient beings". And like Moore, we can ask, is this really good? In the sense that:
"The highest common interest of all sentient beings is good"
is equivalent to
"The highest common interest of all sentient beings is the highest common interest of all sentient beings."
The latter is a tautology, but the former seems like a synthetic statement. They don't seem to be equivalent. — darthbarracuda
the highest "agreed upon" common interest of the "perceived majority" of sentient beings "by the perceived majority of sentient beings" — XanderTheGrey
By what standard? The greatest good for the greatest number? That could be used to justify slavery. I think my standard is much less vague than yours is. — T Clark
So the greatest desire then? Well, that dosen't matter to me, only my desire matters to me. My hypothesis is that my desire is in line with the majority of humanities; taking into account the fact that we must think in order to determine our greatest personal desire. — XanderTheGrey
the highest "agreed upon" common interest of the "perceived majority" of sentient beings "by the perceived majority of sentient beings — XanderTheGrey
Can you define it for yourself? If so, no problem. If not, I think your goal should be to learn how to define how to, rather than come up with some formal system. — T Clark
As I said previously, this can be used to justify slavery. You say "forget good or bad." So, ethical behavior can be morally wrong? I've heard people say that before. I don't understand how that could be. — T Clark
What I am confident that I can identify, is my desire. — XanderTheGrey
I have seen desire fufilled more in precived slavery than in precived freedom. Just as I more often see it the other way arround. — XanderTheGrey
Define what exactly for myself?
I've made an attempt to define ethics, and "identify" my "desire" in comparison with "the greastest common interest of the precived majority of humanity" but defining "good" is pointless, there is no such thing, there is only desire. — XanderTheGrey
I don't think that's a good argument, but let's change slavery to genocide. — T Clark
the highest "agreed upon" common interest of the "perceived majority" of sentient beings "by the perceived majority of sentient beings" — XanderTheGrey
So could this attepmt of mine to define ethics as shown above; justify genocide? Ofcourse it could.... — XanderTheGrey
You say "forget good or bad." So, ethical behavior can be morally wrong? I've heard people say that before. I don't understand how that could be. — T Clark
Why is defining "ethical" ok, but defining "moral" is pointless? It strikes me that they are at the same level of abstraction and deal with similar issues. — T Clark
If, as you say, it could be ethical to kill millions of innocent people, I don't think we have enough commonality to even discuss the issue. — T Clark
If they are the same thing, or I have failed to define ethics, — XanderTheGrey
And we should discuss what each of our visions for humanity are, and determine any form of commonality or differentiation between those, before hunting for commonality or differentiation between eachothers methods. — XanderTheGrey
My vision for humanity - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." — T Clark
I'm not concerned with whats good or bad, I'm concerned with desire. Also allow me to correct that part if my passage; the highest "agreed upon" common interest of the "perceived majority" of sentient beings "by the perceived majority of sentient beings"
And I haven't defined the "good" with that statement, I have defined the "desired".(hypothetically) — XanderTheGrey
But then what relation does this have to ethics? — darthbarracuda
Is there a specific dictionary thats used to authoritize any of these definitions? — XanderTheGrey
My vision for humanity - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." — T Clark
Regarding my vision for humanity -
I wanted to think this over a bit before offering it up, only to offer up origonal aspects, turns out that I have nothing at all to add to whats already been propoused. This being said I belive in the transition to an advaced resource based economy. This is done by creating and shaping a new world culture.
Jacque Fresco has been dead for months, but the project moves on. — XanderTheGrey
Try to see people as they are — T Clark
I liked this a lot. It's very Taoist sage of you. I think most moral/ethical programs miss this first step of observation and understanding before acting. The Sage, in Taoism, realizes that often non-action is the best action. A good portion of the worlds problems are due to well intended meddling!! — MysticMonist
The argument is that it's great to try to do good, but we fail at that pretty often and we disagree on what "good" is. If we could just manage to do no harm we would end up being ethical and it would be a great start. This is hopefully something we can also agree on. — MysticMonist
So ethics is not defined by the majorities common interests? — XanderTheGrey
you say duty drives the ethical. What drives the duty? — bloodninja
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.