That is a loaded statement. If true, then one would have to identify something that is good or bad "outside" of social contexts, but how is this possible since the good and bad are essentially social, conceived only in societies and about social circumstances. Can one "reduce" ethics to something not "social" in its nature? — Astrophel

"Good" is clearly defined by a larger context than the social context. This is evident in principles which relate to respect for other life forms which do not partake in human society, and respect for the planet in general with issues like climate change. "Good" truly transcends the context of human society, because human beings are only a small part of life on earth, and we're all integrated.

You seem to be saying that the world of animals and their lack of ethical principles provides the substratum for the analysis of our world's ethics. — Astrophel

Not their lack of ethical principles; their social mores, which are not articulated as an abstract concept. Everything grows out of all that went before.

This has to be shown, not assumed. — Astrophel

I can't possibly show you the entire spectrum of social behaviours in other species. Here is a starting point.

And "every legal code ever devised" really says nothing about the generational ground of ethics. — Astrophel

That was in answer to :

take the moral obligation not to bludgeon, burn, rip and tear, or otherwise offend and afflict another's living body,....etc. Is this morally exhaustively conceived in the social institutions that would express the prohibition? — Astrophel

Not to:
"What is the generational ground of ethics?"
The answer to that one is my comment about social animals and normative standards of behaviour.

A supreme being would be question begging, for one has to first show what it is about ethical matters that would even warrant such a thing. — Astrophel

It's the only way you're going to get an ethical standard beyond that set by human societies.

It is, though. Nothing you've said comes close to even a reasonable objection to it. Those more meta-ethical bits you put forward do nothing to this account. Can you explain why it's not defensible? That's a very, very bold claim. — AmadeusD

I asked what value was. You mentioned the "collective emotional discomfort" as being foundational, and I asked what this emotional discomfort was all about. A fair question, I think. For while this may be a way to say something true, it is also incomplete. Ethics is not just about this discomfort or emotional regard. Rather, there is something in the world that this is about, the sufferings and blisses of people and animals that are the object of our sympathy, approval, objective needs to regulate, make laws, and otherwise respond to.

The bold claim I am making is simply analytical: no value, that is none of this dimension of suffering, misery, pleasure and happiness, and ethics vanishes. Showing that these are part of the essence of ethics, I mean, it is analytically true the ethics IS what ethics is about.

And such things are not invented. They are in the world. A toothache is much more than the sympathy one may have for someone with a toothache, and the toothache is not to be relativized to a collective public sentiment.

Cool. I was just wondering which behaviors associated with 'alcoholism' you were referring to. It is possible to use alcohol habitually and at harmful levels but for there to be virtually no impact on your life or that of your family. A lot depends on your level of wealth and how you behave when intoxicated.

A person who wants to be an alcoholic behaves in a manner that intentionally sustains and potentiates their dependence on alcohol. — fdrake

I'm not sure what your intention is in saying a person 'who wants to be an alcoholic'. Do you mean this literally, or do you take it as the implication of their behavior? Many problem drinkers don't want to be this way and others don't even know they are problem drinkers. But I get your boarder point.

"Good" is clearly defined by a larger context than the social context. This is evident in principles which relate to respect for other life forms which do not partake in human society, and respect for the planet in general with issues like climate change. "Good" truly transcends the context of human society, because human beings are only a small part of life on earth, and we're all integrated. — Metaphysician Undercover

So with climate change and the rest, it is not just us, but the many animals that live on this earth also, and this is what you have in mind, right? I agree with this. There is, however, a lingering question, which is what is there, then, about animals that make them included in concerns about the Good?

I incidentally noticed I said "ethics IS what ethics is about." Meant to say, "this dimension of our existence is what ethics is about."

"Good" is clearly defined by a larger context than the social context. This is evident in principles which relate to respect for other life forms which do not partake in human society, and respect for the planet in general with issues like climate change. "Good" truly transcends the context of human society, because human beings are only a small part of life on earth, and we're all integrated. — Metaphysician Undercover

This makes so much sense to me.

There is, however, a lingering question, which is what is there, then, about animals that make them included in concerns about the Good? — Astrophel

Isn't it as simple as harm/suffering is negative and therefore bad, and hence, causing harm/suffering (for reasons that do not benefit the person/animal/living thing) is also bad? This seems to be a fact which is not reliant on people's beliefs, opinions or social conventions/norms etc

There is, however, a lingering question, which is what is there, then, about animals that make them included in concerns about the Good? — Astrophel

We don't know the reasons for life on earth. The human being, as a species, is just one small part of the overall organisms, just like you and I are just one small part of humanity. We do not give our individual selves special preference amongst the whole of humanity, and we ought not give human beings special preference amongst the whole of life.

I asked what value was. — Astrophel

I don't understand why that's being asked, though. The proceeding passage doesn't help me I'm sorry.

Ethics is not just about this discomfort or emotional regard. Rather, there is something in the world that this is about, the sufferings and blisses of people and animals that are the object of our sympathy, approval, objective needs to regulate, make laws, and otherwise respond to. — Astrophel

Ethics claims this. I think it fails. Ethics is just discussions about what we should do. IT doesn't ipso facto import any particular framework or conclusory criteria, I don't think.

Showing that these are part of the essence of ethics, I mean, it is analytically true the ethics IS what ethics is about. — Astrophel

Sure. But it gives us no reason to care, other than our own discomfort.

And such things are not invented. — Astrophel

They are. You're giving me states of affairs. Morality is not states of affairs.

A toothache is much more than the sympathy one may have for someone with a toothache, and the toothache is not to be relativized to a collective public sentiment. — Astrophel

This makes no sense to me at all. A toothache is a toothache. End of.

It's the only way you're going to get an ethical standard beyond that set by human societies. — Vera Mont

Or just think of the strong examples themselves and their content. If you are in very intense agony, then do what a good scientist does, which is observe. What you find in the matter is not a language game nor a placement on the logical grid of facts (Wittgenstein) nor is it merely empirical or phenomenological in the mundane sense (as with the way Dennett treats qualia, if you are familiar). The "bad" of burning live flesh, say, belongs to none of these.

So it is certainly not of God, which is one of the pseudo problems traditional philosophy has created. Nor is it beyond what is IN the world, for it stands there before you, the sprained ankle, the delicious dessert and the rest. It is IN the world, like mundane qualia (being appeared to redly, as they say), yet the value "speaks" the bad of the affair.

Keep in mind that Wittgenstein, the god of analytic philosophy, put a muzzle on what philosophy could say not because of his love for ordinary language, but for his love of the Real in play in ethics and aesthetics that was invisible, what G E Moore called a non natural property: the good (and the bad). What cannot be spoken is far to important to be trivialized by philosophy's traditional bs.

Isn't it as simple as harm/suffering is negative and therefore bad, and hence, causing harm/suffering (for reasons that do not benefit the person/animal/living thing) is also bad? This seems to be a fact which is not reliant on people's beliefs, opinions or social conventions/norms etc — Beverley

Yes, it is that simple. Stick my hand in boiling water, and the pain has nothing at all to do with beliefs, opinions, etc. Animals are in their own way just as vulnerable, making them agents of moral concern. Why this is so philosophically troubling lies here: The right or wrong found in ethics, as opposed to contingent matters like bad couches and good baseball bats, is absolute. See Wittgenstein's Lecture on Ethics and his Culture and Value where he says the good is divinity. Absolutes, for W, are nonsense because one cannot speak the world. Speaking is confined to what logic permits (in the Tractatus), and the world "shows" itself but one cannot get "behind the world" to see what the world IS from some absolute perspective and "say" the world is this!, so talk about absolutes is nonsense, yet utterly important in their existence. The very ground of importance itself is beyond saying. Calling ethical matters nonsense elevates ethics to a transcendental standing.

But the trouble: ethics so elevated now has the status of being written in stone on a mountain top. It is, in its essence, non contingent, absolute, indefeasible.

We don't know the reasons for life on earth. The human being, as a species, is just one small part of the overall organisms, just like you and I are just one small part of humanity. We do not give our individual selves special preference amongst the whole of humanity, and we ought not give human beings special preference amongst the whole of life. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not a special preference, but an equal one, or nearly so. I think animals are just as important as we are, yet we have always ignored this. I suspect the elephant, with a brain three times heavier than ours, experiences living with greater breadth than we do. Perhaps there are subtleties of rapture we can't imagine.

But the trouble: ethics so elevated now has the status of being written in stone on a mountain top. It is, in its essence, non contingent, absolute, indefeasible. — Astrophel

Yes, I see the problem. Transcendent ethics almost seem to be an ethics of the gaps to me.

You have completely lost me.

This makes no sense to me at all. A toothache is a toothache. End of. — AmadeusD

If you give an exhaustive account of what a toothache is, then yes, end of. Here is the problem spelled out: There are two kind of good and bad, the contingent and the noncontingent, or absolute. Contingent examples are easy, as with this is a good pair of shoes or a bad coffee cup. These are everywhere in our language use. But note, as contingent goods and bads, they are not stable, not fixed by logic; their status is contingent and accidental. A coffee cup isn't necessarily good or bad, but it depends. Maybe I want an awkwardly shaped vessel that leaks, just for fun. Now those those standard good qualities are bad.

That is how contingency works. Even simple matter like definitions are up for grabs. There is this essay or book (I don't remember) Is There a Text in this Class by Stanley Fish that goes after this. What is a text? See how different contexts give us different meanings. Is it a book left behind by the student? Is it a body of assumed ideas? Is it a designated textbook the prof has chosen? Even basic meanings can be put in play. If I take a stapler and hold the door open, is it still a stapler? Well, yes and no. Is ANYTHING stable, unmovable regarding what it IS? Some think logic is like this, but then, while it is impossible gainsay logic, the "what is it?" question is going to be answered in words and sentences, and so what gives these this noncontingent status?? This is a big philosophical problem.

But ethics "speaks" a language that is not words and sentences, because the value put at risk is not reducible to what language can say because its meaning doesn't come out of language. It comes out of "the world" which Wittgenstein proclaimed to be unspeakable. Logic has this weird insistence that cannot be spoken. But ethics and its good and bad, these have a "voice" and it is not merely the form of meaning possibilities (logic). It is palpable, in your face reality, this "thousand natural shocks the flesh is heir to." One can imagine choosing one bad alternative over another for one has greater utility, as it goes, but what makes the both bad is inviolable.

Now those those standard good qualities are bad. — Astrophel

Even simple matter like definitions are up for grabs — Astrophel

With you so far, and no objections..

This is a big philosophical problem. — Astrophel

Still with you, and clearly that's an interest for several hundred hard-working writers.

because the value put at risk is not reducible to what language can say because its meaning doesn't come out of language — Astrophel

Yes it is.
Yes it does.

It is palpable, in your face reality, this "thousand natural shocks the flesh is heir to." One can imagine choosing one bad alternative over another for one has greater utility, as it goes, but what makes the both bad is inviolable. — Astrophel

Except clearly, there is no consensus on this and it has changed over time. If you want to claim that the vast majority of history has been Ethically "wrong", I would have to chuckle.

So, if the language of Ethics is 'good' and 'bad', lets say, prior to their enunciation and being understood to agents (i.e justification) ... it is useless. And Im fine with that. There is no such thing as absolute good and bad. Im fine with that.

The moral good and bad is supposed to transcend all differences of social context. — Metaphysician Undercover

:100:

"Good" is clearly defined by a larger context than the social context. — Metaphysician Undercover

By whom? Defined where? What larger context?
If you mean that some humans are able to see a larger picture than is depicted in our social codes, yes, I agree that has always been so. Do these big-picture individuals attempt to communicate their vision? Of course they do. Do they make social policy, determine legal, ethical and moral codes?
No, never.

"Good" truly transcends the context of human society, because human beings are only a small part of life on earth, and we're all integrated. — Metaphysician Undercover

The moral good and bad is supposed to transcend all differences of social context. — Metaphysician Undercover

'Supposed' is the operative word here. And that supposition is erroneous. Point to the Good, sans human interaction?
It literally doesn't come into contact with anything but human minds. 'Good' does not exist outside of human expectation. I think the futile, millennia-long attempt to confer on that word some objective meaning would show this fairly well.

:up:

I'm not sure what your intention is in saying a person 'who wants to be an alcoholic'. Do you mean this literally, or do you take it as the implication of their behavior? Many problem drinkers don't want to be this way and others don't even know they are problem drinkers. But I get your boarder point. — Tom Storm

I mean it literally. As it's all that is required from the OP - find a thing which isn't immoral but we shouldn't want to be. I realise that it's absurd. I think that's a strength of what I'm saying - no one gonna wanna be an alcoholic, no one who has any understanding of addiction gonna think it's immoral. It could very well sound like I'm being discriminatory against alcoholics, or saying somehow that alcoholics want to be alcoholics... I'm not. I'm saying that someone who would aspire to be an alcoholic would be being a fool (and thus shouldn't want it). But wouldn't be doing anything immoral by being an alcoholic.

Do they make social policy, determine legal, ethical and moral codes?
No, never. — Vera Mont

Never say "never". You appear to be not well educated in the history of humanity.

'Supposed' is the operative word here. And that supposition is erroneous. Point to the Good, sans human interaction? — AmadeusD

That is correct, "supposed" is the operative word here, and its selection was deliberate. However, whether or not the supposition is erroneous is debatable, that's why I used that term rather than "known" or something like that. Therefore the mistake is yours, to assert that the supposition is erroneous, when the truth or falsity of it is unknown.

You ask a very ridiculous question, point to something without interacting with it. To sense it, thereby point to it, requires interaction, so I dismiss your question as nonsense. The way that we come to know that the supposition of an independent "good" is a requirement, necessary, is a logical process. The independent good is not something sensed, whereby we might point to it, it is determined to be real through logical necessity.

It literally doesn't come into contact with anything but human minds. — AmadeusD

See, you even knew that the good is not something which could be pointed to. Therefore I am justified in dismissing your question as an act of deception, and you, as the fool who thought that they could get away with such an obvious deception.

Never say "never". — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay: I should have said: Never in the modern world, or never in the written, civilized history of mankind. Certainly in the early millennia, when people lived in nature and had direct contact with the non-human world, they were more aware of other creatures, of water and trees and landscape. Some, like the Australian natives, set up a system of stewardship over the resources they needed to survive, while other hunted entire species to extinction.

You appear to be not well educated in the history of humanity. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's true; I have not made an exhaustive study of it. Could you give some examples of benevolent visionaries who made national policy or church doctrine?

Except clearly, there is no consensus on this and it has changed over time. If you want to claim that the vast majority of history has been Ethically "wrong", I would have to chuckle.

So, if the language of Ethics is 'good' and 'bad', lets say, prior to their enunciation and being understood to agents (i.e justification) ... it is useless. And Im fine with that. There is no such thing as absolute good and bad. Im fine with that. — AmadeusD

But it is not a historical claim, that is, it is saying nothing about ethics as it is entangled within a culture, generating rules of behavior and speaking. This analysis is logically prior to this. When one receives a culture and thrown into a whole body of institutionalized norms, the question I am talking about here is something presupposed by this. Here is a simple line of reasoning: Laws tell me not to speed on the highway. Why should I obey? Not because it is the law, and say no more. Rather because it is practically efficacious in many ways, for me, for others. It works, and this seems to be the bottom line, but there is still a more basic question yet again: why should one do what works? Here one encounters a stumble for facile thinking. To ask such a basic question seems at first absurd. One doesn't want a ticket, doesn't want to live in a dangerous world of insane driving with no limits, doesn't want harm to come to anyone, especially children, and so on. But this simply brings the question into focus, which is, why don't I want harm to come to myself of others? ALL of a culture's institutions are analytically reducible to this in the discovery of their ethical foundation.

Cultures are different and can't agree on things, this we know. But this reduction takes the matter closer and closer to the bottom line which is universal. Kant did this with reason, not that he was right about everything, but the point is, this is what philosophy does. It seeks the universal essence of things that we encounter when the questions run out and we face "the world," the basic givenness of experience.

Or look at it like this: Take a given ethical rule or law and ask what is this in the most basic analysis? Looking here for that which, if it were to be removed, the possibility of being a rule/law at all would vanish. In ethics, that essential feature is value found in the concrete value of a thing, like the taste of good food or the pain of being assaulted. The point is clear: take this dimension of our existence away and ethics vanishes. Therefore, an inquiry into the nature of ethics must look here, in the concreteness of our existence for the essence of ethics.

But this concreteness is not born of language. Ethics' essence lies in this existential primordiality, the pure givenness of the world. Hence, the arguments for the relativity or contingency of ethics appears to have failed to follow through, stopping at the way common entanglements create discord. One has to make the last final step toward essence.

I would think most people would like to avoid:
- Doing things that are ugly/disgusting
- Looking stupid or embracing falsehoods
- Preforming practical tasks poorly/incompetently

These can have a moral component, but they don't need to.

This lines up with the proposed "three types of judgement:"
-Moral/practical - good/bad
-Theoretical - true/false
-Aesthetic - beautiful/ugly

Unfortunately, these all tend to be open ended as well. As Moore points out, questions of goodness are open ended. The enduring legacy of radical skepticism shows that truth can always be questions. Likewise, "is it beautiful?" or "why is it beautiful?" is also open ended.

People don't want to be seen as having either bad judgement (of any sort) or of being unable to follow their judgement, i.e., lack of self-control.

I think this ties in quite well with Robert Sokolowski's reformulation of Aristotle's "man is the rational animal," as "humans are agents of truth." We don't want to be seen to be doing things that show poor judgement because ultimately it reflects poorly on our ability to live into veracity, to be agents who are accountable to truth.

Except clearly, there is no consensus on this and it has changed over time. If you want to claim that the vast majority of history has been Ethically "wrong", I would have to chuckle.

So, if the language of Ethics is 'good' and 'bad', lets say, prior to their enunciation and being understood to agents (i.e justification) ... it is useless. And Im fine with that. There is no such thing as absolute good and bad. Im fine with that. — AmadeusD

But it is not a historical claim, that is, it is saying nothing about ethics as it is entangled within a culture, generating rules of behavior and speaking. This analysis is logically prior to this. When one receives a culture and thrown into a whole body of institutionalized norms, the question I am talking about here is something presupposed by this. Here is a simple line of reasoning: Laws tell me not to speed on the highway. Why should I obey? Not because it is the law, and say no more. Rather because it is practically efficacious in many ways, for me, for others. It works, and this seems to be the bottom line, but there is still a more basic question yet again: why should one do what works? Here one encounters a stumble for facile thinking. To ask such a basic question seems at first absurd. One doesn't want a ticket, doesn't want to live in a dangerous world of insane driving with no limits, doesn't want harm to come to anyone, especially children, and so on. But this simply brings the question into focus, which is, why don't I want harm to come to myself of others? ALL of a culture's institutions are analytically reducible to this in the discovery of their ethical foundation.

Cultures are different and can't agree on things, this we know. But this reduction takes the matter closer and closer to the bottom line which is universal. Kant did this with reason, not that he was right about everything, but the point is, this is what philosophy does. It seeks the universal essence of things that we encounter when the questions run out and we face "the world," the basic givenness of experience.

Or look at it like this: Take a given ethical rule or law and ask what is this in the most basic analysis? Looking here for that which, if it were to be removed, the possibility of being a rule/law at all would vanish. In ethics, that essential feature is value found in the concrete value of a thing, like the taste of good food or the pain of being assaulted. The point is clear: take this dimension of our existence away and ethics vanishes. Therefore, an inquiry into the nature of ethics must look here, in the concreteness of our existence for the essence of ethics.

But this concreteness is not born of language. Ethics' essence lies in this existential primordiality, the pure givenness of the world. Hence, the arguments for the relativity or contingency of ethics appears to have failed to follow through, stopping at the way common entanglements create discord. One has to make the last final step toward essence.

Therefore, an inquiry into the nature of ethics must look here, in the concreteness of our existence for the essence of ethics. — Astrophel

The concreteness of our existence is that we have physical and mental requirements and an innate will to survive. In isolation, very few humans can survive on their own in adulthood; none at all from infancy. So ethics and morality are constructed on the requirements for survival in groups.

The concreteness of our existence is that we have physical and mental requirements and an innate will to survive. In isolation, very few humans can survive on their own in adulthood; none at all from infancy. So ethics and morality are constructed on the requirements for survival in groups. — Vera Mont

This seems right to me, and I have no issues with this kind of thinking at all. Just as I have no issues with science. But then, what good is survival? What is in this will to survive that is really at stake?. Survival as such applies to anything, as in, I hope the lawn chair survives the storm. But lawn chairs are not agencies of ethics, that is, they don't, given what they are, generate ethical possiblities. Nor can a rock or a fence post. Our survival is different in that it IS capable of ethicality. The ideas expressed above try to show what it is that makes our survival (and those of animals) ethical at all. For that the essence of ethics has to be exposed.

But then, what good is survival? — Astrophel

For some people, it's no use at all. But for the majority of living things, it's the primal drive. It doesn't need a specific utility: it is the rock-bottom foundation of awareness and effort; the first cause by which all things needful, useful and beneficial are measured.

Survival as such applies to anything, as in, I hope the lawn chair survives the storm — Astrophel

Pink herring, conflating a careless figure of speech with the primal instinct. The lawn chair was never alive. You might go out into the storm to save your neighbour or your dog, because life matters - fence-posts don't.

The ideas expressed above try to show what it is that makes our survival (and those of animals) ethical at all. — Astrophel

That's backward. What makes anything ethical is its contribution to survival.

For that the essence of ethics has to be exposed. — Astrophel

I don't think it needs to be exposed any more times than I've already done.
If you have a more convincing source for the concept, by all means, expose away!

I'm saying that someone who would aspire to be an alcoholic would be being a fool (and thus shouldn't want it). But wouldn't be doing anything immoral by being an alcoholic. — fdrake

Got ya.

Rather because it is practically efficacious in many ways, for me, for others. It works, and this seems to be the bottom line, but there is still a more basic question yet again: why should one do what works? — Astrophel

There is no good answer to this question. I have read the remainder of your reply, and i appreciate it. But this question just doesn't have an answer unless you stipulate an arbitrary aim. By way of brief extension..

Ethics' essence lies in this existential primordiality, the pure givenness of the world. — Astrophel

This, to me, is prevaricative poeticism. There's nothing in this statement. It is just empty concepts. Nothing gives me any reason to think Ethics exists, at all, outside of Human deliberation.