Is life amongst humanity equal?

john27

Obviously I doubt there is one right answer, but heres my take on it.

Ethics should be based on physical stimulus. because we are constrained by the practicality of our human shells. We cannot assume abstractions to give us a logical reason as to why we act a certain way, due to it being not correlated to our objective world. That way we can attain real purpose, with actual reasons why we do or don't do things. In other words, we base our morality on things that give us a positive reinforcement(intelligently, drugs obviously would not result in a long term positive reinforcement) mentally or physically, and then work from there. This way, our values have objective reasoning, because they give us purpose to act.

This has some fundamental problems, such as if your positive stimulus results in something considered unethical e.g burning cats for fun, but for now I think its fine.

Now purpose can be instated in two ways: One, as previously stated due to negative or positive stimulus, or two, due to acquired responsibility. Acquired responsibility can be found on the political spectrum, where the farther right you go the more you segment purpose due to characteristics, and the more left you go the more we equalize purpose, that is to say the more purpose is generalized, or lost.

From this we can extrapolate that if:

Purpose is constructed by society, or the current amalgamated perception of that specific group of humans, then:

Right=Humans are not equal(less equal), Left=Humans are equal(more equal).

If Purpose is defined by positive or negative stimulus, or the intrinsic nature of a human being, then we can assert that Life is still not considered equal, due to the fact that we automatically assert certain humans to be more purposeful or precious than others, e.g who would you rather save, a stranger or a family member?

Obviously I am probably wrong in some areas, but I'd love to know where! I am fairly new to philosophy and this is my second thread, so don't be afraid to fire away. Thanks for reading my entry!

Miller

Humans are fifty percent equal and fifty percent different. The base is equal and the surface is different. Therefore our base behavior should represent equality but our surface behavior should represent difference. If it is to be behavior based on truth.

We have laws to regulate the behavior that pertains to the base. Since this is the fundamental and more important part. Law is basically just offloading your own self defense to the government. This makes people weak and dependent.

john27

↪Miller

Thats an interesting take.

Humans are fifty percent equal and fifty percent different. — Miller

How did you reach that conclusion? Whats the difference between surface and base? is base our primal animalistic behavior? Is surface not related to our base?

Miller

Whats the difference between surface and base? — john27

You don't have to use those terms. By base I mean the foundation. We are all equally human. On the surface there is differences.

There is no morality. There is only true behavior or false behavior. Truth is mind that is accurate to the evidence. Accurate mind create accurate behavior.

There is no self, no free-will, no morality, there is only cause and effect. Truth and falsity.

My world view is simple and clear and contains no questions. Others spend their lives lost in illusions.

Banno

Ethics is fundamentally about how one relates to others.

Attempting to base ethics on how one feels, on "physical stimulus", is an error.

DingoJones

↪Banno

What about a moral agent who is entirely alone? Does he cease to be a moral agent until there are others to relate to?

Banno

↪DingoJones

Yep.

DingoJones

↪Banno

You can do better than that.

What about moral intuitions? Not dependant on other agents. The loner could still have them couldn't he?

What about a utilitarian? Is there not a single utilitarian calculation that effects just the loner?

Maybe you have good answers for those, but it only takes one instance amongst all the different ethical philosophies and standards and I that would exclude relation to others as fundamental, right?

Banno

What about moral intuitions? Not dependant on other agents. The loner could still have them couldn't he? — DingoJones

What - about himself? Then they are preferences, and not about morality.

What about a utilitarian? Is there not a single utilitarian calculation that effects just the loner? — DingoJones

...and so utilitarianism fails to amount to a moral position. Fine.

Keep going.

Leghorn

Ethics should be based on physical stimulus. because we are constrained by the practicality of our human shells — john27

The “human shells” you speak of are our bodies, within which our souls abide, and it is the latter, not the former, that ethics or morality is concerned with.

We are not constrained by the needs of our bodies. We frequently neglect those needs in order to effect a good greater than that dictated by “physical stimulus”. Tell me how it is “practical” that a soldier go off to war to defend his country and place his physical self in danger? Maybe he can expect, if he survives the war, to get free lunches on Veterans Day, and free hearing aids through the VA, but do you think he is calculating all this when he signs his name on the bottom line?

As far as the distinction you make between Left and Right politically, that the former’s policy is based on the common currency of the “human shell”, ie, the body, and the latter upon the extra-human potential, I would agree with you. It is clear that not all ppl are created equal, despite Jefferson’s edict.

And this, I think, is the distinction b/w right- and left-wing politics in our day, whether they pertain to the body or to the soul...

..,I leave this for you to ponder and consider, and, perhaps, respond to.

DingoJones

What - about himself? Then they are preferences, and not about morality. — Banno

Why? Is there no moral treatment of oneself? I don't understand the basis for your conclusion. Where are you grounding morality so that it precludes ethical positions and actions concerning only an individual?

.and so utilitarianism fails to amount to a moral position. Fine. — Banno

Im not a utilitarian, I was offering examples of ethical frameworks under which your claim might not apply.
Have you excluded all these other ethical systems on the basis that they do not have relation to others as fundamental? If not, Im curious as to what basis you give primacy to the ones (or is it just one, if so, which one if it has a name) that do have relation to others as fundamental.

Also, “keep going” is what Im doing when Im not asking other people questions. If Im asking, its because I cannot or have chosen not to “keep going”. I think on my own and ask questions when I want to think with/understand someone else. Telling me to go think more is precisely opposite the purpose of a question and answer.
Thats meant as explanatory rather than snide. Since Im asking you about your views you are the best person to get answers from, not me. Again, not intended as snide but Im asking you to talk to me, not prompt me.

Banno

Is there no moral treatment of oneself? — DingoJones

No.

DingoJones

↪Banno

Lol, alright. I’ll keep going.

john27

The “human shells” you speak of are our bodies, within which our souls abide, and it is the latter, not the former, that ethics or morality is concerned with. — Leghorn

I would describe that our souls are constructed by the body, or formalized if you will; that the belief of a soul is simply the body's projection of it's interests into the real(whatever that means) world. Therefore, a human shell would consist of both the body and soul, since they are one and the same.

We are not constrained by the needs of our bodies. We frequently neglect those needs in order to effect a good greater than that dictated by “physical stimulus”. Tell me how it is “practical” that a soldier go off to war to defend his country and place his physical self in danger? Maybe he can expect, if he survives the war, to get free lunches on Veterans Day, and free hearing aids through the VA, but do you think he is calculating all this when he signs his name on the bottom line? — Leghorn

Is the need of a body to live? Perhaps, due to an inane indoctrination, his environment has placed the perception of his body to receive greater physical stimulus to die for his homeland, than to stave away at home knitting. Than the most practical course of himself would be to, sadly, run into the cannonballs of the enemy.

And this, I think, is the distinction b/w right- and left-wing politics in our day, whether they pertain to the body or to the soul... — Leghorn

I would agree.

I guess the main question to our discussion would be to assess whether the soul is truly different from the body.

john27

Ethics is fundamentally about how one relates to others. — Banno

How can one relate to another practically, without any physical confrontation?

john27

↪Miller

I have a suspicion that in fact we believe in quite similar things. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I would assess that we both have a dangling need to ground ethics, either by denying morality outright or by containing it into something objective for fear of it getting whisked away by intricate illusions.

My main problem with the way you ground morality is this point here:

There is no morality. There is only true behavior or false behavior. Truth is mind that is accurate to the evidence. Accurate mind create accurate behavior. — Miller

How can we assess evidence to be accurate? what was our first truth to kickstart our accurate behaviour, and how did we find that that truth was true?

Miller

How can we assess evidence to be accurate? what was our first truth to kickstart our accurate behaviour, and how did we find that that truth was true? — john27

This is Epistemology.

My position on epistemology is: truth is just a map that is accurate to the territory. Territory is experienced through the senses, and can be confirmed by others senses.

I'm not describing a perfect method. I am describing THE method we use.

Leghorn

I guess the main question to our discussion would be to assess whether the soul is truly different from the body.
14h — john27

I agree.

Having read your posts in this thread I can see that you are a materialist, and by that term I mean that you are are a reductionist: you want or tend to reduce all phenomena to what is physical or material. That this is an error on your part, or on the part of anyone else so inclined, I will attempt to prove...

...and I was about to embark on a diatribe proving that immaterial things are real, but I checked myself; and I hesitated because I realized that I had often done so before in this forum without persuasion, that I have always failed to persuade by such means. This led me to consider a different approach: if you are willing, I would like to question you Socratically, ie, through what is called dialectic.

In dialectic there are two ppl, a questioner and an answerer. They needn’t remain the same throughout the dialectic: sometimes the questioner invites the answerer to ask the questions, and sometimes the answerer demands to become the questioner. Likewise, sometimes the questioner demands that the answerer ask him questions, or the answerer declines to answer any further questions. In other words, they can switch roles at any point as long as both agree to do so.

If you are willing to engage in such a dialectic with me, I will ask you a question to initiate it. There are no “rules” to the game, just the “honor system”: yes-or-no questions should be answered with a “yes” or “no”; if the answerer thinks “yes” or “no” is insufficient to answer the question, then his answer should be as short as possible in explanation of that caveat...

...are you willing then to engage in a dialectic with me on the topic of whether the soul is different from the body?

john27

↪Leghorn

I'd be more than happy to.

john27

↪Miller

I would agree!

Miller

I would agree! — john27

But senses are still subjective and consciousness is solipsistic. This is where philosophy comes in and turns into spirituality.

TheMadFool

What about a moral agent who is entirely alone? Does he cease to be a moral agent until there are others to relate to? — DingoJones

Ethics is fundamentally about how one relates to others. — Banno

Morality is about life. A single individual is alive. Ergo, even a loner has to have morals.

DingoJones

↪TheMadFool

Well Banno’s point was that morality is about relations between life, precluding the logic you used there.

TheMadFool

Well Banno’s point was that morality is about relations between life, precluding the logic you used there. — DingoJones

Reflexive relations!

Banno

It's odd that this point should be contentious.

The things you choose to do that do not involve others are simply a question of your preference. Do as you choose. The things you choose to do that do involve others are of a different kind. It is these considerations that are the topic of ethics.

Leghorn

@john27

Would you agree that whatever is real exists, and that whatever is not real does not exist, and that, similarly, anything that exists is real, and anything that does not exist is not real?

TheMadFool

@DingoJones

It's odd that this point should be contentious.

The things you choose to do that do not involve others are simply a question of your preference. Do as you choose. The things you choose to do that do involve others are of a different kind. It is these considerations that are the topic of ethics. — Banno

I'm not saying there's no difference in the way you treat others and the way you treat yourself - the latter is characterized by more freedom i.e. you have more options compared to the former.

However, as a person, as per philosophy itself, our mission is to attain eudaimonia (flourishing); this is, in a sense, a duty to yourself. Given this, someone may perform/fail to perform this duty and that's, ethically, being moral/immoral to yourself. Ethics applies even to the last man on earth.

Banno

↪TheMadFool

And if you are alone, what is it to flourish?

Give an example.

TheMadFool

And if you are alone, what is it to flourish?

Give an example. — Banno

Taking care of oneself.

Banno

↪TheMadFool

Ah. Eating well and exercising regularly. These are an issue of ethics?

Why ought one do so?

TheMadFool

Ah. Eating well and exercising regularly. These are an issue of ethics?

Why ought one do so? — Banno

Yes. As you care for, broadly speaking, the health of others, you should do for yourself too. Is there anything wrong with that? :chin:

Is life amongst humanity equal?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions