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

You just did my argument for me. You based your ethical statement on the health of others. Hence, ethics enters into our thinking only when we encounter others.

You just did my argument for me. You based your ethical statement on the health of others. Hence, ethics enters into our thinking only when we encounter others. — Banno

But, our own health?

My stand is that ethics is about life, how we treat it. A loner has life. Ergo, he's obligated to be ethical towards himself. Health is just the tip of the iceberg as regards wellbeing in life.

On your argument, whatever he chooses to do will be ethical.

It does nothing.

If he chooses to be healthy, that's good. If he chooses to eat nothing but meat, that's good. If he chooses to suicide, that's good. There's no difference between what he wants and what is good, what is ethical, because there is no intentional context except for him.

Ethics comes into being when what you want conflicts with what someone else wants.

On your argument, whatever he chooses to do will be ethical.

It does nothing. — Banno

I beg to differ. Where there's life, wellbeing is an issue and wellbeing is just another name for ethics. Being alive, a solitary individual has a moral duty to be concerned about his personal welfare.

As for choice, as I mentioned before, we have a greater degree of freedom when it comes to how we treat ourselves as compared to how we treat others. This freedom is what we might call our right but I still feel this has to be balanced with every single person's fundamental right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as enshrined in the US constitution.

wellbeing is just another name for ethics. — TheMadFool

OK, let's suppose that it is (it isn't).

Then what is welfare? Is it living long? Is it living happily - not the same thing. Is it living with the maximum pleasure? is it eating as much cheese as possible?

What ever is chosen, will be for the individuals welfare, because there is no other criteria for that welfare.

OK, let's suppose that it is (it isn't).

Then what is welfare? Is it living long? Is it living happily - not the same thing. Is it living with the maximum pleasure? is it eating as much cheese as possible?

What ever is chosen, will be for the individuals welfare, because there is no other criteria for that welfare. — Banno

Yes, welfare would, inter alia, include a long, fulfilling life and happiness too. As these would be considerations one will, for certain, factor in our relations with others, they also form the basis of our relations with ourselves.

Imagine a single individual stranded on a deserted island. "If," he thinks, "there were other persons with me, I'd expect them to be good to me." In other words this Ribinson Crusoe character cares about his wellbeing. Does it not follow then that he should be good to himself?

Not sure what to make of that post.


Are you now agreeing with me?

Not sure what to make of that post.


Are you now agreeing with me? — Banno

:lol:

I'm not sure how to get my point across but let's look at two well-known theories of morality:

1. Utilitarianism: The Greatest Happiness Principle which is basically the rule that one has to maximize happiness.

2. Kantian ethics: The categorical imperative states that "act only on those maxims which you would will to be a universal law"

Do you see others mentioned in these moral rules? Phrased differently, you can be happy...so it's ethical to maximize your happiness (egoism?) and is it possible to universalize a maxim that's not aligned to a loner's wellbeing?

@Banno

1. Why must you be good to others?

2. Because others can be happy (good) and sad (bad).

3. I, a hermit in the Carpathian mountains, can be happy and sad.

Ergo

4. I and all lone individuals like me must be good to myself.

Do you see others mentioned in these moral rules? — TheMadFool

The second one, yes, obviously.

The first, what is the difference, for an individual, between "maximise happiness" and do what you want? It ceases to be a moral maxim if no one else is involved.

4. I and all lone individuals like me must be good to myself. — TheMadFool

What ever is chosen, will be for the individuals welfare, because there is no other criteria for that welfare. — Banno

I see your point - the rules I follow when I'm the only one around will be different from when I live in a community. One could even say that as a lone individual, say living as an anchorite, I can live without rules/principles.

However, let's examine this business of others in re morality. What about others is the basis of ethics? The low hanging fruit, the obvious answer, is the ability to feel pain & joy. If this ability (disability?) were absent, others are as morally relevant as a pebble or a dead stump of a tree. Right?

I, even when I'm all alone, can feel pain & joy and that, as we've seen above, is the deciding factor with respect to others vis-à-vis ethics. It follows then, doesn't it?, that I have to be ethical/good towards myself?

We're talking about two different things and that's why we're not able to see eye to eye on the issue.

You're concerned about the kinds of "moral" rules that, I concede, will differ, for sure, between a loner and a person living in a society. [What makes one happy/sad is the issue]

I'm saying that there'll/there has to be "moral" rules whether you're living all by yourself or among others. [That we can be happy/sad at all is the issue]

I hope this clarifies the situation.

One could even say that as a lone individual, say living as an anchorite, I can live without rules/principles. — TheMadFool

Do you see the relation to the Private Language argument?

Following a rule is essentially a social activity. Following a rule while alone is a back-construction from following a rule in a community.

That's why each of your examples starts with a social situation.

You are 'others' too. There is you now and you tomorrow. They are not identical and you, as we all do, have to negotiate with ourselves as a future/past projection.

I have been thinking lately that what we want for ourselves is often projected onto others and that this is due the above. We wish our ideas acted out by others so we can observe the difference from our projection to the reality of what will happen. I think this is why we're always trying to control the world to some degree or another.

When it comes to ethics I think too many just assume there is an easy way to bridge meaning with action so they tend to side with reason over emotion, yet when the item of 'meaning' is regarded as some purity they find nothing and in breaking from that ghost nihilism takes hold. In this light ethics is more or less an amalgam of societal inputs and this gives some the impression of emptiness as they've removed from reason any space upon which guidance was written. They don't see the guiding principles as mere reflections/shadows of other forms and so feel disillusioned and hollow.

No action taken is genuine to oneself as oneself is not one self. The horde of who you are does come into view more or less at certain points. From there action has more force, from points where the individual is thin on the ground error rules.

Do you see the relation to the Private Language argument? — Banno

Wittgenstein defined a language as that which cannot be Private. It is really an argument more of a definition of 'language' put in place and made clear in meaning as NOT being private.

If we can think without words and language can come into being without words existing in the first place then language need not be worded/signed but worded/signed language is revealing something about language as a whole.

And linguists are quite happy to view language as apparent in species other than humans. We are certainly able to express in more broad terms it seems and the instances of deaf people with NO language (as we general frame language) show that knowledge of language in the sense of words/signs is not at all important for living in a human society that uses language daily.

IN split brain patients the hemispheres communicate in the world not through words/symbols. They act out and interact according to cognitive aims. They actually fight against each other and collaborate and interfere with each other constantly.

Do you see the relation to the Private Language argument?

Following a rule is essentially a social activity. Following a rule while alone is a back-construction from following a rule in a community.

That's why each of your examples starts with a social situation. — Banno

Now that you mention it, yes!

I can't tell whether one informs the other though. Intriguingly, qualia - the ineffable aspect of morally relevant experiences (what is it like to feel pain/joy?) - seems to both matter (the unpleasantness/pleasantness of pain/joy is the deciding factor) and not matter (beetle-in-the-box).

You are 'others' too — I like sushi

@Banno $\uparrow$

I have been thinking lately that what we want for ourselves is often projected onto others and that this is due the above — I like sushi

The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would like others to do unto you.

Banno $\uparrow$. For your attention.

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? — Leghorn

I would disagree solely on the point that assumes that anything that exists is "real", per say. For example, knowing that dragons don't exist, I create an image of a dragon in my mind. That image exists; so would the dragon exist?

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

Senses are subjected to what? To whom? the self? well our "self", was constructed by someone else, being our parents. So would our senses be subjected to their self?

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

Is it a question of preference?
I would believe that how you treat yourself and how you treat others are quite related to each other.

And when are we in not in relation to "something"?

As long as we are in relation to something that informs or controls our purpose, could we not create ethics based of that?

I think one could create ethics based on how one feels, because that is in relation to something that is "other"(being that in my belief, our primitive sense of self and our body appears to be different, to be other).

I would disagree solely on the point that assumes that anything that exists is "real", per say. For example, knowing that dragons don't exist, I create an image of a dragon in my mind. That image exists; so would the dragon exist? — john27

Do you say then that the image of something is the same thing as what it is an image of? In your example, is the image of the dragon the same thing as the dragon itself?

Isn't it better to treat an unequal as an equal rather than treat an equal as an equal? What are we trying to achieve here? Massaging egos ain't the solution? It only postpones the Aristotelian anagnorisis but neither prevents it nor what follows - the ouch time!

Do you say then that the image of something is the same thing as what it is an image of? In your example, is the image of the dragon the same thing as the dragon itself? — Leghorn

I would say no, they are not the same. One is incomplete because it does not exist, the other is complete because of its existence.

In simpler terms, my view is that existence doesn't require belief. If you have to believe that something exists...well, I dont know. Nothing wrong with that I guess, just maybe its a more subtle form of existence that doesn't necessarily apply to the pursuit of truth in general, but an existence to generate personal truth. One that your happy with.

@john27

Since you appear to assert that the dragon you imagine does not exist, and that its image in your mind does exist, are you willing to withdraw your objection to

anything that exists is real, — Leghorn

since it is clear that the image of the dragon is real and exists, while the dragon itself is not real and does not exist?

Yeah go ahead. I withdraw my statement!

@john27

Then what is real exists and what exists is real.

Can we go further and say that what exists and is real is detectable, and that what does not exist and is not real is undetectable?

undetectable to whom? To us? Then I would say no, provided that echo location exists; even if we cannot detect it(naturally).

@john27

By “”naturally” I suppose you mean directly by means of our unaided senses of sight and hearing etc., but I didn’t mean that when I said detectable; I meant rather to include any means of detection, including echo location, the microscope, telescope, and any other means that is artificial, ie., aided by man-made instruments.

Including these sorts of aids in detection, would you agree that what exists and is real is detectable, and what doesn’t exist and is not real is undetectable?

I would agree.

@john27

So for example, though it is scarcely conceivable that anyone could ever journey to the center of the earth, or even send a probe there, we know that its center exists, and is detectable, even though we cannot detect it.

So for example, though it is scarcely conceivable that anyone could ever journey to the center of the earth, or even send a probe there, we know that its center exists, and is detectable, even though we cannot detect it. — Leghorn

Well, by our previous agreement we had stated that as long as you had a device to aid your natural perception, which is to instate that everything is perceivable as long as you have the right tool, it would exist if only we could verify it's detectability.

If our plethora of tools could not ascertain the detectability of the middle of the earth, then it would not exist: e.g, if mathematics had failed to prove that there is a center to the universe, then by its blatant imperceptibility it would be hard to imagine its existence.