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
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.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
I can't possibly show you the entire spectrum of social behaviours in other species. Here is a starting point.This has to be shown, not assumed. — Astrophel
That was in answer to :And "every legal code ever devised" really says nothing about the generational ground of ethics. — Astrophel
Not 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
It's the only way you're going to get an ethical standard beyond that set by human societies.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 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
A person who wants to be an alcoholic behaves in a manner that intentionally sustains and potentiates their dependence on alcohol. — fdrake
"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
"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
There is, however, a lingering question, which is what is there, then, about animals that make them included in concerns about the Good? — Astrophel
There is, however, a lingering question, which is what is there, then, about animals that make them included in concerns about the Good? — Astrophel
I asked what value was. — Astrophel
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
Showing that these are part of the essence of ethics, I mean, it is analytically true the ethics IS what ethics is about. — Astrophel
And such things are not invented. — Astrophel
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
It's the only way you're going to get an ethical standard beyond that set by human societies. — Vera Mont
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
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
This makes no sense to me at all. A toothache is a toothache. End of. — AmadeusD
Now those those standard good qualities are bad. — Astrophel
Even simple matter like definitions are up for grabs — Astrophel
This is a big philosophical problem. — Astrophel
because the value put at risk is not reducible to what language can say because its meaning doesn't come out of language — Astrophel
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
:100:The moral good and bad is supposed to transcend all differences of social context. — Metaphysician Undercover
"Good" is clearly defined by a larger context than the social context. — Metaphysician Undercover
"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
'Supposed' is the operative word here. And that supposition is erroneous. Point to the Good, sans human interaction?The moral good and bad is supposed to transcend all differences of social context. — Metaphysician Undercover
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
Do they make social policy, determine legal, ethical and moral codes?
No, never. — Vera Mont
'Supposed' is the operative word here. And that supposition is erroneous. Point to the Good, sans human interaction? — AmadeusD
It literally doesn't come into contact with anything but human minds. — AmadeusD
Never say "never". — 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?You appear to be not well educated in the history of humanity. — Metaphysician Undercover
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
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
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. — Vera Mont
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.But then, what good is survival? — 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.Survival as such applies to anything, as in, I hope the lawn chair survives the storm — Astrophel
That's backward. What makes anything ethical is its contribution to survival.The ideas expressed above try to show what it is that makes our survival (and those of animals) ethical at all. — Astrophel
I don't think it needs to be exposed any more times than I've already done.For that the essence of ethics has to be exposed. — Astrophel
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
Ethics' essence lies in this existential primordiality, the pure givenness of the world. — Astrophel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.