a school of ethics that was somewhat like utilitarianism but instead of favouirng the maximum pleasure it attempted to favour the most just — Bert Newton
What if?.....We use science to find the cause of a harmful action and dismiss highly subjective claims in favour of objective facts? — Bert Newton
I don't know what flavor of ethics you are referring to, but one alternative to Bell Curve Ethics and Duty Ethics, is Virtue Ethics, as espoused by Socrates & Confucius. Instead of rigid rules or hypothetical pro-con calculations, VE is adaptable to various circumstances. The moral agent may use rules-of-thumb, or try to predict the consequences, but he may also invent an intuitive pragmatic response on the spot, based on his personal character. Since your concern seems to be Moral Relativism, Virtue Ethics allows the agent to exercise a more nuanced notion of right & wrong, adapted to the current context. Unfortunately, he can't justify his individual choice with numbers or by citing legal authority or precedence. :worry:Long ago I came across (I vaguely remember doing, at least) a school of ethics that was somewhat like utilitarianism but instead of favouirng the maximum pleasure it attempted to favour the most just. — Bert Newton
Perhaps the ethical theory you had in mind is the one called Hedonism or Epicureanism. Both rely on the "pleasure principle" as the arbiter of good & evil, which is indeed the basis of egocentric self-interest. But as an ethical principle it lacks the Altruism necessary for the Public Good, and it provides no reason for Deferred Gratification essential for mature human behavior. :smile:1) Human beings take action on the desire they believe will give them the most pleasurable experience. — Bert Newton
What if?.....We use science to find the cause of a harmful action and dismiss highly subjective claims in favour of objective facts? — Bert Newton
in Christianity they circumcise — Bert Newton
But as an ethical principle it lacks the Altruism necessary for the Public Good, and it provides no reason for Deferred Gratification essential for mature human behavior — Gnomon
Science can only show us how to best achieve the fulfillment of a moral duty, not prove what that moral duty ought to be. — MadWorld1
I won't get into that tangled can of worms. The ambiguous meaning of such notions as "pleasure", "happiness" or "wellbeing" have been debated for years. But it all boils down to how we choose between Good & Bad. In general it's a Cost vs Benefit analysis, but some human behavior is not rational or analytical. Deferred gratification is not "good" for you right now, but it may allow you to find "pleasure" or "success" later. Some have rationalized Altruism as an ironic or paradoxical form of Pleasure. But most human behavior is assumed to be directed toward "what's good for our genes" and to avoid what's bad. So why do so many people do things that are obviously bad for them, such as smoking tobacco? Do they have "bad" beliefs about what's good for them? Does present pleasure outweigh eventual pain in their analysis, or do they just do "what they d*mn well please"? :cool:Can you give me an example of an altruistic action or deferred gratification action, or any action at all for that matter that isn't predicated on the belief that it will give you pleasure? (Perhaps substitute "pleasure" with "happiness" or "wellbeing" as they mean the same thing here). — Bert Newton
why do so many people do things that are obviously bad for them, such as smoking tobacco? Do they have "bad" beliefs about what's good for them? — Gnomon
Do they have "bad" beliefs about what's good for them? — Gnomon
Does present pleasure outweigh eventual pain in their analysis, or do they just do "what they d*mn well please"? — Gnomon
Deferred gratification is not "good" for you right now, but it may allow you to find "pleasure" or "success" later. — Gnomon
Can you give me an example of an altruistic action or deferred gratification action, or any action at all for that matter that isn't predicated on the belief that it will give you pleasure? (Perhaps substitute "pleasure" with "happiness" or "wellbeing" as they mean the same thing here). — Bert Newton
That may be true, but it's also why civilized people need some kind of ethical principle that is not based on primitive urges. Utilitarianism was intended to allow an objective rational calculus for good & bad, but some people are not inclined to dispassionate dissection of their urges & motives, or informed calculation of consequences. That's why cultivating a virtuous character in children may allow their Superego to instinctively override the Freudian Id, in the interest of moral behavior in public. :smile:Thanks for the example but I think it proves my point. Everything we do is predicated on the belief that such action is the one that will bring us the most pleasure. — Bert Newton
Well, that's what we are pondering. So far, people like Sam Harris have made a compelling argument for objective moral grounds. — Bert Newton
Harris uses the analogy of putting your hand in fire. Consider Humes Law with this example:
Your hand IS in the fire therefore you OUGHT to pull it out
One can see how ridiculous this is, the ought is inherent in nature, an axiomatic ought. Likewise, human beings don't have a choice when it comes to acting on the desire that they believe will give the most happiness, it's a neurological function of the brain; dopamine, serotonin, physiological functions. — Bert Newton
It's not just a neurological function of the brain to strive for happiness, that's a tool evolved to incentivize survival and reproduction in order to spread our genes. Isen't that, then, the real axiomatic ought? — MadWorld1
That's just it; it's a function of the brain, it's not in the sphere of morality — MadWorld1
I just can't shake the feeling that we're talking about why people act a certain way on average, or why we seem to have a kind of universal, intersubjective sense of at least obvious right and wrong, and conflate it with what we ought to do. To me these are different questions. — MadWorld1
Yes, but the tool the selfish genes adopt to do so is the pleasure reward. I think they're linked, if the purpose is to survive then it's wrong to kill (according to the gene). Pleasure means survival, harm means death. The only problem with the selfish gene though is that it carries this wacky and seemingly unnecessary thing called consciousness. We are not just "survival machines" as Dawkins puts it but conscious ones at that. — Bert Newton
A wave of cortisol is the feeling of anxiety. A wave of dopamine tells us that the belief we hold about our action is the right course. Brain states affect behaviour, right or wrong behaviour. Aren't we now in the field of ethics? — Bert Newton
Because the why is involuntary, it forces the ought. There is no "what we ought to do", we are forced to act on pleasure, then the question arises, is this the best way to seek pleasure? — Bert Newton
No, I don't think so. Brain states affect behavior, not right or wrong behavior. — MadWorld1
I We ought to proliferate our genes.
II Force impregnating women will proliferate our genes.
Conclusion: We ought to force impregnate women. — MadWorld1
Are you arguing for objective morality or a subjective one? — MadWorld1
You seem knowledgeable on the topic, so do you mind if I ask for other books that I can read on the topic, other than the one by Sam Harris? — MadWorld1
This is where you are misunderstanding.
Behavior, or "doing something", or "acting on a desire", is motivated by the belief that such action will give you the most pleasure (as opposed to other actions). Here's the point you need to grasp: — Bert Newton
I would argue that we don't actually want to survive, we want to experience pleasure, survival just allows it. What about suicide? The selfish gene has failed there, but pleasure has dictated once again. Also, the selfish gene isn't actually selfish according to Dawkins, it can be very altruistic, it does whatever it can to survive. Dawkins actually regrets calling it that and prefers to call it "the immortal gene". — Bert Newton
I'm very new to this, no expert. If you have read The Moral Landscape then you have a firm foundation, however I think Alex O'connor and Steven Woodford take it to a new level. Watch this presentation by Alex The Good Delusion if you're really interested in this, and will no doubt explain it better than I have. — Bert Newton
I mean, who's pulling who? The carriage or the horse? — MadWorld1
Oh, be prepared, he has since changed his mind on that and is now in more agreement with Harris, as you will see. — Bert Newton
Are you arguing for objective morality or a subjective one? — MadWorld1
What causes desire is the conviction of pleasure-at-the-end, what causes that is irrelevant as then you are going down a causal chain that has no meaning to the conscious experience: dopamine, nervous system, genes, egg and sperm, grandparents, chimpanzees, unicellular organism, the big bang. — Bert Newton
It seems to me that one must prove not only the validity of the axiomatic ought but also its nature. — MadWorld1
yes, the reason why we do anything is determinism but in ethics we are dealing with conscious states, good and bad, right and wrong behavior, and for that we only need to look so far as pleasure being the prime mover. — Bert Newton
If you're interested in hearing critique of Sam Harris's view, and I think that's wise if we are to prove this theory, then I can recommend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxalrwPNkNI — MadWorld1
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.