Ethics as a method, not an artifact.

Deleted User

Hello my fellow tellurians,

I hope this discussion finds you well. I'd like to draw some attention to a topic that I think a great many thinkers have misconceptions about. It happens rather often that thinkers find themselves debating, both publicly and privately, about the nature of ethics. Often one hears arguments regarding the objectivity of ethics, the subjectivity of ethics, the nonexistence of ethics, the divine source of ethics and so on. I'm sure you're all familiar with the phenomenon. However, I'd like for you all to consider the idea that our perceptual framework regarding the subject is at best, disoriented, and at worst, misaligned entirely. By that, I mean to posit that it is quite conceivable that questions of the objectivity, subjectivity, absence of, or divine dissemination of ethics is the improper mode viewing the subject.

To illustrate: One would not argue the objectivity of math, or the nonexistence of math, would they? Would they argue the subjectivity of science, or its divine dissemination? We know that math can be used by experts to achieve desired outcomes in the objective world, but numbers do not exist in reality. Nor, is it likely that any two persons would utilize math for the same subjective interests, or goals. For arguments sake, I would assert that the same is true for the application of science across these standards. And if I am correct in the above listed assertions, the question at hand becomes: Then why are we asking these questions with regard to ethics.

The internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy characterizes ethics thus: "The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior." Notice the procession of actions here: "systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior." To systematize something is to arrange according to an organized system. Just as we do with math, just as we do with science. Math is, after all, nothing more than a sytematized approach to understanding numbers, formulas and related structures, shapes and spaces in which they are contained, and quantities and their changes. And science, after all, is nothing more than the systematized approach to inductively observing the natural phenomena of the universe, in the hopes of discovering truth and making predictions about the future. So, why is ethics treated any differently?

I posit this to you my friends, in the hopes of a peaceful discussion on the subject, that the questions most commonly associated with the topic of ethics, i.e. objectivity, subjectivity, etc., are distractions that keep us from understanding the truth. That being, that ethics is a systematized approach to formulating well argued reasons for concluding that certain behaviors are wrong, or right, and that such an approach is open to a plethora of legitimizing standards such as consistency, universality, objectivity, subjectivity, utility, coherence, reciprocity, justice, deontology, pleasure, self-maximization, interpersonal harmony, stoic resilience, independence, liberty, and religiosity. Of course, I'm sure there are more standards I may have missed, but that's where you come in, dear friends!

Thanks for stopping by. I hope you like the topic at hand and enjoy diving into it with me.

Cheers!

-G

T Clark

One would not argue the objectivity of math, or the nonexistence of math, would they? — Garrett Travers

People do argue the objectivity of math. There are people who believe the ground of being, fundamental reality, is math.

Often one hears arguments regarding the objectivity of ethics, the subjectivity of ethics, the nonexistence of ethics, the divine source of ethics and so on... questions of the objectivity, subjectivity, absence of, or divine dissemination of ethics is the improper mode viewing the subject. — Garrett Travers

ethics is a systematized approach to formulating well argued reasons for concluding that certain behaviors are wrong, or right, and that such an approach is open to a plethora of legitimizing standards such as consistency, universality, objectivity, subjectivity, utility, coherence, reciprocity, justice, deontology, pleasure, self-maximization, interpersonal harmony, stoic resilience, independence, liberty, and religiosity. — Garrett Travers

These statements seem contradictory to me.

Tom Storm

One would not argue the objectivity of math, or the nonexistence of math, would they? Would they argue the subjectivity of science, or its divine dissemination? — Garrett Travers

They do argue vociferously about whether math is invented or discovered - that latter belonging to those (like Roger Penrose) who consider math to originate in a Platonic realm. And there are those who would argue that the mere intelligibility of the world and science presupposes some kind of foundational guarantee of that intelligibility. If all of life is just matter behaving through the blind evolutionary process, why would we presume that humans can apprehend truth or reality at all? (Donald Hoffman and others)

And phenomenology would probably argue that math and science belong to communities of shared understanding (intersubjectivity) and that human knowledge and truths are created.

I'm not a philosopher and I'm not sure if I can subscribe to any particular views like these but the world of philosophy is immense and ethics can be slippery. Some people are desperate to found their beliefs on a transcendent rock. Is this how you view Objectivism?

Deleted User

↪T Clark

People do argue the objectivity of math. There are people who believe the ground of being, fundamental reality, is math. — T Clark

I'm sure some people may debate it, but it's self-evident that numbers don't exist in reality, even if things are arranged in a mathematically consistent manner in the universe.

These statements seem contradictory to me. — T Clark

Thanks for letting me know. To clarify: The former, more popular, questions listed are not the proper mode of viewing, or line of questioning. It skips over what ethics is, which is a methdology developed by which we derive from certain values what can reasonably be regarded as either ethical, or unethical behavior. The latter list, is an inventory of standards that can be incorporated into one's ethical framework, by which each behavior concluded to be either moral, or immoral can be legitimized. Meaning, the former questions are all irrelevant, they don't apply. They don't apply anymore than asking if math, or science, or jazz theory are any of those things. What matters is can I use Jazz Theory to make coherent music? Can I utilize scientific methodology to get someone to the moon? Can I use ethics to live a life that leads to greater happiness, harmony, peace, and prosperity. Just as a quick elaboration. I'll go as deep as you need me to if that doesn't clarify.

Deleted User

They do argue vociferously about whether math is invented or discovered - that latter belonging to those (like Roger Penrose) who consider math to originate in a Platonic realm. — Tom Storm

Invented or discovered isn't what the issue was. It was whether or not math is objective, which it isn't. It's a subjective system formulated by humans through observation. Math doesn't exist in the world without a human mind to systematize numbers and so on..

And phenomenology would probably argue that math and science belong to communities of shared understanding (intersubjectivity) and that human knowledge and truths are created. — Tom Storm

Enacting scientific observation and experiment is objective, that's actual human activity. Science is a concept, meaning it doesn't exist in the world without human implementation.

I'm not a philosopher and I'm not sure if I can subscribe to any particular views like these but the world of philosophy is immense and ethics can be slippery. Some people are desperate to found their beliefs on a transcendent rock. Is this how you view Objectivism? — Tom Storm

A great question. Here's a suprising answer for you: No. This is not how I see Objectivism. It's how I see all ethical epistemologies that can be used by individuals to standardize their ethical behavior in the world. However, not all are always applicable. Need any clarity on that?

pfirefry

The internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy characterizes ethics thus: "The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior." <...> Math is, after all, nothing more than a sytematized approach <...>. And science, after all, is nothing more than the systematized approach <...> So, why is ethics treated any differently? — Garrett Travers

The encyclopedia says that the field of ethics involves systematizing. It doesn't say that ethics is nothing more than systematizing.

It's an interesting way to look at ethics, but my intuition and experience tells me that there are reason why people are arguing about ethics. It's easy to reframe the definition and claim that there is no point in arguing, but that wouldn't stop the argument. It would only stop you from participating. As someone studying philosophy, you should get comfortable with engaging in argument for the sake of it, and not to win it or stop it from happening :smile:

Deleted User

↪pfirefry

The encyclopedia says that the field of ethics involves systematizing. It doesn't say that ethics is nothing more than systematizing. — pfirefry

I know that, that's why I said notice the procession of action: systematizing, defending, and recommending. Those actions describe ethics as a branch of philosophy.

It's an interesting way to look at ethics, but my intuition and experience tells me that there are reason why people are arguing about ethics. It's easy to reframe the definition and claim that there is no point in arguing, but that wouldn't stop the argument. — pfirefry

I don't have any issue with people debating and arguing ethics, I'm saying that the manner in which they often choose to is skewed. They're asking the wrong questions. Those kinds of questions don't apply to human-formulated systems used to make sense of the world, like ethics, science, or jazz theory. Those primary questions I highlighted are just as irrelevant to science, math, and jazz theory, as they are to ethics, as each are human engineered conceptual systems. Not objects, subjects, things that can or cannot exist, or be divinely disseminated.

Tom Storm

A great question. Here's a suprising answer for you: No. This is not how I see Objectivism. It's how I see all ethical epistemologies that can be used by individuals to standardize their ethical behavior in the world. However, not all are always applicable. Need any clarity on that? — Garrett Travers

I'll continue to look on and pop in the odd question. Your ideas are interesting to me because they are probably the opposite of mine. I am always most interested in ideas that don't match my worldview. But I am sure you are used to that scenario.

No disrespect intended but are you here to proselytize for Objectivism?

Deleted User

↪Tom Storm

I'll continue to look on and pop in the odd question. Your ideas are interesting to me because they are probably the opposite of mine. I am always most interested in ideas that don't match my worldview. But I am you are used to that. — Tom Storm

Sounds great, come on back.

No disrespect intended but you here to proselytize for Objectivism? — Tom Storm

No. I'm here to discuss all of philosophy, Objectivism included. But, to clarify my last statement, because it's looking like I wasn't clear enough, I regard all epistemologies as methods by which to standardize ethical behavior. Meaning, depending on what kind of ethical dilemma one finds themselves in, each epistemology, or atleast most, have a place in one's considerations for action. In other words, I draw from every epistemology to draw my conclusions. Just understand, when I hear, or see legitimate frameworks being insulted, dismissed, or ridiculed without qualification, I will defend them, be that Objectivism, Utilitarianism, Correspondence Theory, or what have you.

Tom Storm

Just understand, when I hear, or see legitimate frameworks being insulted, dismissed, or ridiculed without qualification, I will defend them, be that Objectivism, Utilitarianism, Correspondence Theory, or what have you. — Garrett Travers

Interesting. Have you studied philosophy?

Deleted User

↪Tom Storm

Interesting. Have you studied philosophy? — Tom Storm

It's my major.

Agent Smith

I share your sentiments OP. I'm tired of arguing about those matters you metioned in your OP in re ethics - I'm increasingly persuaded that they're a dead ends. However, it can't be ruled out is that what's missing is genius capable of tackling such problems.

While we await the birth of one, let's get down to the brass tacks shall we? What's the purpose of ethics? I consider this the tool view - like a knife, ethics was invented to do something. If so, like how we've perfected the design of knives based on what their function is, we can/should do the same with ethics.

What's ethics for?

To bring about and maintain social harmony?

Looks like it. All that remains now is to work out what kind of rules (moral injunctions) are needed for this.

To ask of ethics "what is it?" is to ask "what is it for?"

Tom Storm

It's my major. — Garrett Travers

Nice. I don't have much knowledge of philosophy but I do have passions. Be gentle.

Deleted User

↪Tom Storm

My friend, I'm here to teach and be taught, not to rough house people. You're safe here. Not to mention, the guys that run this platform don't really like bullshit, so everything should be good.

Deleted User

↪Agent Smith

I share your sentiments OP. I'm tired of arguing about those matters you metioned in your OP in re ethics - I'm increasingly persuaded that they're a dead ends. However, it can't be ruled out is that what's missing is genius capable of tackling such problems. — Agent Smith

I'll do you one better, Smith, although generally I agree with. I'd posit that there's no lack of genius, but a lack of interest. There seems to be something that's caught hold of modern Man. Some strange nihilism. Whether induced by parental abuse, loss of religion, inept education, over-gratification through chemicals and tech is not clear; I'd say it's a little bit of all of that. But, I'd like to emphasize something I didn't add to the list, that being that for the vast, vast majority of people, it is almost an assurance that philosophy has never been taught to them. The public schools don't teach the stuff, by and large. Yet, philosophy is quite literally the back-bone and basis for every field of study ever concieved. Meaning, it has been left out of primary school curricula intentionally. And if you complete highschool having never had an introduction to logic and ethics, the kind of intorduction that we all get to math and English, then there's a good chance that critical thinking, ethics, and critically thinking about ethics are probably something you're never going to find yourself doing; damn sure not if mixed in with all of the other factors I enumerated.

What's the purpose of ethics? — Agent Smith

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that seeks to generate systematic approaches to analyzing behavior and its outcomes, in the hopes of creating methodologies of behavior that can be relied upon to produce the optimal amount of peace, prosperity, happiness, pleasure, justice, harmony, productivity, health, and overall well being for all participants. That is fundamentally what ethics is.

If so, like how we've perfected the design of knives based on what their function is, we can/should do the same with ethics. — Agent Smith

This is dead on. Ethics is a tool for optimal behavior. Just as science is a tool for optimal obervation of reality. Just as math is a tool for optimal analysis of patterns, values, and change. Just as Jazz is a tool for optimal musical performance. All of these are conceptual tools by which we appraoch domains of interest for optimal results in each respective domain.

T Clark

I'm sure some people may debate it, but it's self-evident that numbers don't exist in reality, even if things are arranged in a mathematically consistent manner in the universe. — Garrett Travers

As @Tom Storm explained, serious physicists take the idealist view that reality may consist of mathematics. It clearly isn't "self-evident" that they're wrong.

It skips over what ethics is, which is a methdology developed by which we derive from certain values what can reasonably be regarded as either ethical, or unethical behavior. — Garrett Travers

ethics is a systematized approach to formulating well argued reasons for concluding that certain behaviors are wrong, or right, and that such an approach is open to a plethora of legitimizing standards such as consistency, universality, objectivity, subjectivity, utility, coherence, reciprocity, justice, deontology, pleasure, self-maximization, interpersonal harmony, — Garrett Travers

If the Christian God exists, and if he tells me what behaviors are right and wrong, seems to me that the methodology is objectively true. For me, the basis of our judgements of right and wrong, the methodology if you will, come from the fact that we are social animals and we are emotionally and empathically connected to our fellow humans. That could be reasonably interpreted as a subjective methodology.

It's not the behavior that's objective, subjective, useful, universal, it's the way we decide what is ethical that is.

Deleted User

As Tom Storm explained, serious physicists take the idealist view that reality may consist of mathematics. It clearly isn't "self-evident" that they're wrong. — T Clark

Yep,and I explained that, although scientists and thinkers may debate about whether things are arranged in a mathematical fashion, no scientist claims that the universe is comprised of numbers, or that the conceptual framework known as mathematics is an objective element of universal composition. Numbers are human fabrications used to make sense of reality, not objectively extant figures, or values. This is not contested.

If the Christian God exists, and if he tells me what behaviors are right and wrong, seems to me that the methodology is objectively true. — T Clark

If that were the case, then you'd be onto something. However, there is no evidence suggesting the existence of God, let alone that he told you what was good and how to enact it, let alone that he told you the truth. In other words, when we can establish that such an entity exists, then we'll cross that bridge.

For me, the basis of our judgements of right and wrong, the methodology if you will, come from the fact that we are social animals and we are emotionally and empathically connected to our fellow humans. — T Clark

That's absolutely a fine position to hold. In fact, I mentioned it as a standard metric. The problem that I think you have with that, is that it cannot be your only metric. There are behaviors that you could potentially engage in privately that could damage your health, self-esteem, psychological well-being, or ruin your opportunity to achieve a deeply desired goal. Meaning, it clearly isn't only a matter of interpersonal harmony. That's where my multiferious standards come in, there are many standards for you to apply to a given situation to determine the most ethically sound course of action.

It's not the behavior that's objective, subjective, useful, universal, it's the way we decide what is ethical that is. — T Clark

Sorry, you've got this statement all jumbled. Actions are objective because they have objective, independently observable consequences. Deciding what is ethical is an individual deliberation that occurs only in your mind, which would be subjective. Much like conducting an experiment is an objective embodiment of the subjectively formulated scientific methods. However, I may be critiquing an argument that you didn't mean to put forward. In which case you should inform me.

Joshs

↪Garrett Travers

Ethics is a tool for optimal behavior. Just as science is a tool for optimal obervation of reality. Just as math is a tool for optimal analysis of patterns, values, and change. Just as Jazz is a tool for optimal musical performance. All of these are conceptual tools by which we appraoch domains of interest for optimal results in each respective domain. — Garrett Travers

The thing about tools is that they have a habit of re-defining the task that they were supposedly designed for.
Take science, for instance. It is designed for observation of reality, but we often don’t appreciate that it already pre-selects what counts as real, and over time, it changes its critieria concerning what counts as real, factual evidence. So it turns out the assumed passive tool of observation is also the active creator.
Ethics as a tool operates the same way.

Others here have already mentioned that there are philosophies and psychologies of mathematics which treat them not as pure products of the mind but results of embodied interactions with the world, much like perceptual objects. Thus they are neither purely subjective features of mind not objective features of the world but the result of an indissociable interaction between the two.

Deleted User

↪Joshs

Take science, for instance. It is designed for observation of reality, but we often don’t appreciate that it already pre-selects what counts as real, and over time, it changes its critieria concerning what counts as real, factual evidence — Joshs

Yes, Thomas Kuhn would call this phenomenon a paradigm change. Which is where we get that phrase, by the way. However, although I appreciate that topic as a genuine point of interest, it doesn't actually have much relevance here. To explain, it doesn't actually matter if tools evolve, or develop better and better variations of themselves. What matters is: Is this still the tool being used to solve for the problem at hand. In other words, yes paradigms shift - you might think of Newtonian physics as opposed to Einsteinian physics, or Aristotelian ethics as opposed to Kantian ethics - it doesn't change the fact that it is still that particular practice that serves as the tool to provide clarity on the most optimal version of each respective domain.

So it turns out the assumed passive tool of observation is also the active creator.
Ethics as a tool operates the same way. — Joshs

I think I can completely accept this assertion. Nothing here is incompatible with anything I've elaborated on.

T Clark

It is my understanding that this is not true. There are scientists that claim that the universe is comprised of mathematics. Or are you making a distinction between numbers and mathematics?

no scientist claims that the universe is comprised of numbers, or that the conceptual framework known as mathematics is an objective element of universal composition. — Garrett Travers

If that were the case, then you'd be onto something. However, there is no evidence suggesting the existence of God, let alone that he told you what was good and how to enact it, let alone that he told you the truth. In other words, when we can establish that such an entity exists, then we'll cross that bridge. — Garrett Travers

You say it's not appropriate to judge whether the methodologies of ethics are objective or subjective, yet here you are stating that they aren't objective because there is not God.

Deciding what is ethical is an individual deliberation that occurs only in your mind, which would be subjective. — Garrett Travers

Now I'm confused. You previously wrote that ethics is the process by which we develop an understanding of what is right and wrong, but here you say that ethical decisions are subjective.

If I intentionally kill an innocent person with no justification, is that wrong? If it is, is it wrong objectively or subjectively. Are the standards by which we decide whether it is wrong or not objective or subjective.

Deleted User

It is my understanding that this is not true. There are scientists that claim that the universe is comprised of mathematics. Or are you making a distinction between numbers and mathematics? — T Clark

I'm going to start here by saying: find me one and show me his arguments. And secondly, no I'm not drawing a distinction, I am describing to you the exact relation between numbers and mathematics. Numbers are symbols humans created to represnt values, and mathematics is a system that humans created to map those values onto reality. Which is exactly what would create the illusion that reality was comprised of math. It isn't. It's comprised of matter, energy, space, time, and quanta. Those things simply arrange themselves in ways that humans can use math to map numbers onto reliably.

You say it's not appropriate to judge whether the methodologies of ethics are objective or subjective, yet here you are stating that they aren't objective because there is not God. — T Clark

I did not say it was inappropriate, I say that such questions were not the right ones. Meaning, the questions being directed at ethics would reveal nothing about them because such questions do not pertain to abstract conceptual models of measurments. Whenever you are able to grasp my above response, this response will make 100% greater sense to you, I promise.

Now I'm confused. You previously wrote that ethics is the process by which we develop an understanding of what is right and wrong, but here you say that ethical decisions are subjective. — T Clark

No, I have said the entire time that ethics is an abstract conceptual framework created by humans to rationally assess questions of right and wrong.

is it wrong objectively or subjectively. Are the standards by which we decide whether it is wrong or not objective or subjective. — T Clark

Now, you're cutting to the meat of the whole thing. The ethics of murder is not written into the code of reality. To determine if this course of action is wrong, you will need a conceptual framework within which to operate. You can assess this from among, but not limited to, the following: Aristotelian Ethics, Stoic Ethics, Utilitarian Ethics, Natural Law, Social Contract Theory, Virtue Ethics, or Objectivist Ethics. In which case you would take the act in question - in this case murder - and plug it into one, or more, or all of these frameworks and decide which one seems most reasonable, or attempt to combine all of the different framework's views that apply to the act in question and see how often the frameworks show compatability with one another on the subject, in the hopes of building as grand a case against murder as you can possibly muster. Does that make sense?

Joshs

↪Garrett Travers

There are scientists that claim that the universe is comprised of mathematics. Or are you making a distinction between numbers and mathematics?
— T Clark

I'm going to start here by saying: find me one and show me his arguments. — Garrett Travers

“[]I believe consciousness to be closely associated with the sensing of necessary truths — and thereby achieving a direct contact with Plato’s world of mathematical concepts.”(Roger Penrose)

"the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and that there is no rational explanation for it".( Eugene Wigner, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences)

These Platonic views of mathematics suggest the belief that universe itself is mathematical rather than it being the case that our brains are wired to see it that way.

T Clark

I'm going to start here by saying: find me one and show me his arguments. — Garrett Travers

Here's a link to an article.

https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html

I haven't read it and I'm not really interested in the subject. The arguments don't really matter. I was just responding to your statement that it is self-evident that mathematics is not objective.

Numbers are symbols humans created to represnt values, and mathematics is a system that humans created to map those values onto reality. — Garrett Travers

I agree with you, but many people, scientists and mathematicians, don't.

The ethics of murder is not written into the code of reality. — Garrett Travers

This is where I get lost. You say that asking whether ethics is objective or subjective is not the right question, then here you say it is not objective. There are people, a lot of people, who believe that right and wrong is written into the code of reality. I think you've begged the question - It seems you're saying talking about whether ethics is objective or subjective is wrongheaded because it is obviously subjective.

Deleted User

“[]I believe consciousness to be closely associated with the sensing of necessary truths — and thereby achieving a direct contact with Plato’s world of mathematical concepts.”(Roger Penrose) — Joshs

That's not a claim that the universe is made of mathematics. In fact it's barely a claim that could be described as coherent. Again, as Penrose said, Plato's mathematical concepts, not objective. He's claiming that consciousness has the power to detect reality, not that reality is made of math. It's time to put this to bed.

the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and that there is no rational explanation for it" — Joshs

Except math was created to make sense of values observed in the universe. Values arranged as the result of the laws of nature. It would be far more spooky if numbers weren't as useful as they are. Again, not a claim that math exists in reality, reality exists, math was created by humans.

These Platonic views of mathematics suggest the belief that universe itself is mathematical rather than it being the case that our brains are wired to see it that way. — Joshs

No, it suggests that the universe is arrayed in patterns that humans can use math to map values on to and make sense of, not that it is itself mathematical. The laws of nature create all of the parameters necessary for matter and energy to operate in ways that can be traced and patternized.

Deleted User

I haven't read it and I'm not really interested in the subject. The arguments don't really matter. I was just responding to your statement that it is self-evident that mathematics is not objective. — T Clark

"Yeah, the argument is contained in his book and it isn't accepted as much in the way of anything special. In fact, he makes literally the same arguments I've made on this subject here this thread, but simply jumps to the conclusion that the universe is made of math. But, hey, at least I got one guy on the roster.

I agree with you, but many people, scientists and mathematicians, don't. — T Clark

The vast majority do not claim that the universe is made of math. In fact, the specifically say that the universe is composed of matter, energy, space, time, and quanta, all arrayed in patterns made possible by the laws of nature.

This is where I get lost. You say that asking whether ethics is objective or subjective is not the right question, then here you say it is not objective. — T Clark

That's because the question isn't relevant. It does nothing more than derail any constructive conversation on the topic. Questions of existence, objectivity, or subjectivity do not apply to conceptual frameworks. It doesn't make any sense to bother oneself with that line of inquiry. Observing that conceptual systems are formulated in the brain is not me claiming something is subjective and it wouldn't matter to the practice if I were. Ethics, the tool we use to determine the morality of a given action, takes place exclusively within our heads. The relevant question is by what standards do we conclude an act is either moral, or immoral.

There are people, a lot of people, who believe that right and wrong is written into the code of reality. — T Clark

Right, my contention is: who cares if it is? What matters more is, have you developed a method by which to reliably conclude the rightness, or wrongness of a given action. It wouldn't matter if it were written in our code, generated by a human mind, or disemminated by god.

I think you've begged the question - Talking about whether ethics is objective or subjective is wrongheaded because it is obviously subjective. — T Clark

No, it's wrong because it makes no difference to the frameworks that have been developed. It's non sequitur entirely.

T Clark

"Yeah, the argument is contained in his book and it isn't accepted as much in the way of anything special. In fact, he makes literally the same arguments I've made on this subject here this thread, but simply jumps to the conclusion that the universe is made of math. But, hey, at least I got one guy on the roster. — Garrett Travers

The vast majority do not claim that the universe is made of math. In fact, the specifically say that the universe is composed of matter, energy, space, time, and quanta, all arrayed in patterns made possible by the laws of nature. — Garrett Travers

Do you really want to take this any further? It is not directly related to your primary point, which is about ethics, not math.

Right, my contention is: who cares if it is? What matters more is, have you developed a method by which to reliably conclude the rightness, or wrongness of a given action. It wouldn't matter if it were written in our code, generated by a human mind, or disemminated by god. — Garrett Travers

Yes, I have, but it is not like you describe here:

That being, that ethics is a systematized approach to formulating well argued reasons for concluding that certain behaviors are wrong, or right, — Garrett Travers

It's the Golden Rule - Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. It's Kant's categorical imperative - Treat people as people, not as means to an end. It's putting myself in the other person's position and trying to understand how they feel, trying not to hurt them.

Deleted User

Yes, I have, but it is not like you describe here: — T Clark

I wasn't actually asking you, I was describing a question that, unlike questions of objectivity and the like, is relevant. But, I am glad you are doing so.

It's the Golden Rule - Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. It's Kant's categorical imperative - Treat people as people, not as means to an end. It's putting myself in the other person's position and trying to understand how they feel, trying not to hurt them. — T Clark

Right, so these aren't methods, these are principles. Moral actions that represent a code. Ethics is the practice of rationally formulating that code, based upon standards that are either logically consistent, universally applicable, objectively observed, subjectively favored, or correspond to reality, reciprocity, strengthen resolve, or character, or independence, so on and so forth. Are you seeing what I am saying? What you described was an act assumed to be moral. What ethics is, is the process by which we conclude an act is moral, or immoral. Ethics would be you explaining to me why the golden rule was moral.

T Clark

Ethics is the practice of rationally formulating that code, — Garrett Travers

But I didn't rationally formulate it. It comes from my heart. What I know is right. I don't feel any need to rationally justify it. I like people and I don't want to hurt them.

Deleted User

↪T Clark

I like people and I don't want to hurt them. — T Clark

This IS your rational justification. That is your ethical deliberation. The Golden Rule is its representation in behavior. The first is the subjective conceptual formulation, predicated upon rational assessment -"I like people and I don't want to hurt them.-" And the second is the objective embodiment of that conceptual framework - the deliberate adherence to, in the form of behavior, the Golden Rule. Do you see now why it is irrelevant to ask those questions? It doesn't matter if it is objective, you will objectively embody it. It doesn't matter if it is subjective, you will rationally conceptualize it. It doesn't matter if it doesn't exist, you'll do the pevious two actions regardless. It doesn't matter if God disemminated it, you do it because it feels right to you nonetheless. It's totally irrelevant. The only thing that mattered is how you got to your conclusion and whether or not that method has enough support on its own. So, for example, the Golden Rule is also one of my principles. Not because I like people, or God, or anything regarding feelings. But, because a world where people respect individual sovereignty is the world that provides for greater utility, free exchange of ideas and goods, allows me to self-actualize, develop independence, and find a partner that will choose me for my values, and not because I can emotioanlly manipulate her. It's a better world for everyone, irrespective of how much I like them. Are you seeing what I've been getting at all this time?

T Clark

his IS your rational justification. — Garrett Travers

You seem to be defining "rational" differently than I do. Reason is not involved. There aren't any words. I put it into words now so we can discuss it. There even aren't any reasons for it. No objectives. Just feelings. I know right from wrong.

Is any of this important to your argument:

Questions of existence, objectivity, or subjectivity do not apply to conceptual frameworks. It doesn't make any sense to bother oneself with that line of inquiry. Observing that conceptual systems are formulated in the brain is not me claiming something is subjective and it wouldn't matter to the practice if I were. Ethics, the tool we use to determine the morality of a given action, takes place exclusively within our heads. The relevant question is by what standards do we conclude an act is either moral, or immoral. — Garrett Travers

I agree that the standards we use to determine whether an act is right or wrong is a good subject for discussion. That doesn't mean that discussion of where those standards come from is misguided.

I think maybe we've taken this discussion as far as we're going to get. From now on, I think we'll just start repeating ourselves. Good discussion.

Deleted User

You seem to be defining "rational" differently than I do. Reason is not involved. There aren't any words. I put it into words now so we can discuss it. There even aren't any reasons for it. No objectives. Just feelings. I know right from wrong. — T Clark

Reason: a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
Rationality: the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

You were able to put it into words because of the above two listed processes. You knew that you liked people and didn't want to hurt them.s

Is any of this important to your argument: — T Clark

It's the fundamental topic of this thread.

I agree that the standards we use to determine whether an act is right or wrong is a good subject for discussion. That doesn't mean that discussion of where those standards come from is misguided. — T Clark

This is specifically the topic at hand. The topic at hand is that ethics is an abstract conceptual method by which we formulate frameworks for standardizing the ethicality of behavior. I didn't say asking questions about where they come from is misguided, I said that asking the questions that are constantly asked about ethics regarding objectivity, subjectivity, existence, or divine dissemniation were irrelevant, as they have no bearing on the ethical process. Nothing would happen to how we reason ethics if we could answer any of those questions. Ethics would still look just like it does now.

I think maybe we've taken this discussion as far as we're going to get. From now on, I think we'll just start repeating ourselves. Good discussion. — T Clark

I suppose that is fair. Take care now.

-G

Ethics as a method, not an artifact.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions