You've shown that principles might have non-ethical applications, not that this invalidates their ethical ones. No more than a tire used on a car invalidates the use of a tire on a bicycle. — Artemis
Now show me that ethics is a different thing from everything else, by showing at least one quality (which may be a combination of qualities) that applies only to ethics. If you show that, then you prove that ethics exist — god must be atheist
I am curious to see that you can show a feature (principle or quality) of ethics, which is unique and pervasive to all ethics. Both UNIQUE and PERVASIVE. — god must be atheist
Creative soul, if at work which is computer programming, I start to play loud music, or else start to sing loudly, or play roulette with my co-workers, I display unacceptable behaviour, but they are not unethical. — god must be atheist
That's the answer. I stand beside it. — creativesoul
Do those behaviours break the rules of acceptable conduct at your workplace? Are you allowed to act like that? — creativesoul
Now show me that ethics is a different thing from everything else, by showing at least one quality (which may be a combination of qualities) that applies only to ethics. If you show that, then you prove that ethics exist. — god must be atheist
Does an apple only exist because it is different from everything else? And here I thought all fruit share various qualities and aspects. — Artemis
Ay-vey. You are going at it from an angle you ought not to.
Apples exist. But to show it to a person who denies the existence of apples, you have to show him an apple.
If you can't show him an apple, from his point of view he won't accept that apples exist. — god must be atheist
noun
an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct:
a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived:
a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive rulingopinion:
principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management:
guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct:
an adopted rule or method for application in action:
The word can mean several things. You are trying to tie it down to a single definition that fits your own position, but that's not how I have employed it throughout this discussion.
And a principle is a feature of ethics. Calling something either of those terms is not mutually exclusive. — Artemis
At this point I'm really not sure where the conversation is going, because from my vantage point (and I'm sorry if this isn't true from your vantage point) your answers/questions are becoming more and more silly. — Artemis
I rest satisfied, however, that you were unable to show one single unique and pervasive trait or qualioty, which may be a combinaition of qualities, that applies to what you call ethics. — god must be atheist
Except it is not. It is not a personal opinion of mine that you failed to give one example even that would have disproved my claim. It is not my personal opinion: it is out there for the whole world to see.I mean, that can be your personal opinion as well. — Artemis
I asked for a single occurrence that would have served as a disproof of my claim. You failed to provide it.But of course you were making impossible and simultaneously illogical demands for proof. — Artemis
That leads you to something as useless as "just do it" or worse, "do." — Artemis
Why should there be a limit? — Artemis
While, sure, the kitten principle is a more specific version of "do no harm," that doesn't mean it's not a principle. Just like the law generally prohibits theft, but it also has more specific rules about specific kinds of theft. — Artemis
I disproved that your description stands. — god must be atheist
you failed to give one example even that would have disproved my claim. It is not my personal opinion: it is out there for the whole world to see. — god must be atheist
Now, goals are inherently subjective, varying from one subject to another, due to the fact that they exist relative to one's intention. Intention is the property of an individual. — Metaphysician Undercover
The utility itself will be judged as unrighteous, incorrect, and therefore unjustified. And an unjustified utility will not justify use of the system. In fact there will be the reverse effect. The more useful the system is for obtaining an unrighteous goal, the more unjustified the system is. — Metaphysician Undercover
Must it? Must everything be justified? How does that work non-circularly? If 'The Goal' is what I feel what am I supposed to do on finding that it is not justified (by your method which you've yet to reveal)? Am I supposed to now not feel that way? — Isaac
Where's the circularity? If the goal is not justified, then the means for obtaining that goal (the system) is not justified. Isn't this straight forward and obvious to you? It seems pretty basic. — Metaphysician Undercover
So religious commandments have all of the criteria you list above, or lack them just as much? — Isaac
I haven't said anything about religious commandments, I'm addressing your deceptive claim that a system is justified by its utility. — Metaphysician Undercover
The argument is simply that if system X is one which helps me achieve my goals it is justified that I maintain it. — Isaac
I'm talking about the having of goal, something which is common to every intentional creature. — Isaac
In order to be satisfied with that justification, one only need to also have goals and consider whether one would also maintain a system useful in helping to achieve them. It's about empathy. — Isaac
You're conflation unrighteous (in a moral sense) with incorrect (a technical sense). Say a criminal mastermind sets up an elaborate trap to kill millions. He has used (to achieve his evil goal) the system of 3d spatio-temporal relativity. Is that system now wrong? Wat if he calculated how many guns he'd need using arithmetic, is arithmetic now wrong? — Isaac
Because you have to use a 'system' to judge the righteousness of the goal. Must you then justify that system? — Isaac
No, I know. I just thought I'd get it out there now. It's the subtext behind all of your philosophy. You don't seem capable of investigating any matter without forcing it down some path which ends with "...because God". — Isaac
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.