As to tailoring the ethics to the person, it seem to me that it's the flaws of the person that are the reason for there being ethics. If you go person-centric, you have no ground on which to either judge or critique anyone else for acting on their version of their own ethics. — tim wood

So, If it is true that these non-cognitivist theories are ineffective due to the fact that morals become egocentric and judged upon the person themselves, then it must be true that you believe that people must share moral judgement. If this is true then you must believe that ethical theories - such as Kant's ethics - must be a set of rules that must be followed objectively by everyone. If not, then you run into a contradiction. If you don't believe that moral judgments are a set of rules then you believe that people can both abide and not abide by these moral judgments. People that do not abide by these rules are are then taking on the non-cognitivist attitude and judging based upon their own moral judgments. But, you cannot not believe this and also claim that Kant's deontology is not a set of rules because you must believe that his moral statements apply to everyone, therefore preventing them from creating, and abiding by, their own moral judgement.

This is not an attack, just an argument that shows how you seem to have gone in a loop of which you must believe that either Kant's ethics are a set of rules or that Emotivism and Prescriptivism are applicable theories - which you have just expressed that you believe that they are not.

In what sense do you find them inflexible - how would you like them to bend? — tim wood

I find them inflexible in the sense that you are essentially forced to complete a certain action in conflicting duties. For example, Imagine your friend was ill with cancer and the only way to save her would be to steal an antidote which is in the possession of your mother. You are conflicted between saving life and stealing. Kant's ethics would say that you shouldn't use others as a mean to your ends according to the second formulation - meaning that you shouldn't steal the antidote from your mother. Meaning that you would have to let your friend die. Is this a moral act? Therefore, shows the inflexibility of Kant's ethics.

Furthermore, consider the axeman case. (Your friend is at your home one day. You get a knock on your door. It is a man with a sharp axe in his hand looking angry, asking for your friend. If you lie and say he is not in the house, perhaps your friend hears the man asking for him, he panics and leaves through the back door only to encounter the man after he left because you lied to him. Had you told the truth, perhaps the axeman would have come in the house looking for your friend and doesn't find him because he has already left. Therefore you saved his life by following the categorical imperative.) This is a prime example of how Kant intends for you to follow the categorical imperative, implying that it is a rule. If you were to break the rule it would have resulted in your friend dying.

Also, the fact that you must rely on your friend overhearing the conversation and leaving the house would seem too remote from actual happenings and perhaps too much of a coincidence. The reason why I use this particular example is because this is a popular example to support Kant's deontology.

I hope I have been clear enough :) If there is anything you are having trouble with understanding, please let me know and I can clarify.

What counts as a lie? What is the criterion which, when met, counts as being a lie? — creativesoul

I agree, you must define what you mean by lying and in what context to be clear.

I would never use the Af-Am term. If I was asked to describe the look of a darker pigmented American chap I would just say "A black guy". — raza

Indeed, but some people think they are being racist by saying 'black guy'. Its just like I explained before ...

Usually, it is said to be down to a person's up bringing and parental influence which allows them to think that it is acceptable to be racist, some people don't even know that they are being racist just because their norm is to use these phrases just like it is normal to say 'Hello' and 'How are you?'. — GreyScorpio

Yeah, I wonder how many of our darker pigmented American brothers and sisters from the Caribbean feel about being seen as African American. — raza

Of course, they immediately disregard the fact that the Caribbean is actually in America. They should be classed as American. However, the slaves that were taken from Africa to America have the same pigmented skin - darker skin - hence they contextualized this name to correspond with this particular group of people with this colour of skin. African or not.

Microbots retain the real advantage of VR, without, for all that, being 'virtual'. In my science fiction fantasy of the future, everyone at birth is given one million microbots to do as one will, augmenting real life in real, tangible ways. — StreetlightX

This is an excellent example of how VR could be implemented into the real world without the restrictions of being subject to 'one world'. As understood, VR games are always regarding one subject - whether it be shooting zombies or skydiving - there is no space to then leave that particular activity to do something else, like sit on the sofa and watch TV, because you have separated that experience from the real world - where VR and AR do not interact accordingly.

Does the traditional academic approach to 'race': race-history, the history of 'African Americans', 'Irish Americans', the sociological 'needs' of a particular 'race' etc, contain a powerful sublimated racism, that makes it impossible for the victims of formal education to escape ownership of 'racism'. — Marcus de Brun

Usually, it is said to be down to a person's up bringing and parental influence which allows them to think that it is acceptable to be racist, some people don't even know that they are being racist just because their norm is to use these phrases just like it is normal to say 'Hello' and 'How are you?'.

In terms of academics, learning about racism can be a large help in making the younger generations understand racism - what it is and, most importantly, why it is wrong. However, even 'academically correct' names, such as African American and Jew; could be construed as racist just because of the social connotations and historical value that these names hold. The formal representation of learning how racism came to be can sometimes loose the message of why the children are being taught this information.

What, exactly, do you want? An ethics of convenience that will allow you to do what you want? If you have a better model, present it. But it's hard to beat reason - unless you abandon it for something else. Is that what you're about? If it is, what replaces reason? — tim wood

In a perfect world, a moral theory would suffice the preference of every individual. I was simply giving another side of the argument to Kant's ethics, clearly specifying that its most damaging problem is, in fact, its inflexibility. I do think that theories such as emotivism and prescriptivism are much more specific to the human itself, which raises the question on whether morals should be subjective or objective.

What do you think about that, and if they are subjective, how do we put this in place?

They inform and advise as to criteria for maxims that you invent to establish your own rules for yourself. The maxims themselves then provide a ground of defense or justification for the particular action you do undertake. And there's nothing moral or ethical about it. — tim wood

Okay, but don't you think that Kant had in mind, when claiming that Maxims must be universalizeable, that we must all abide by this maxim or 'rule' in order for us to be moral or for our actions to hold moral value.

The maxim competing with the don't lie rule might be, don't put another person in danger, even if you have to lie to protect them. And if this held in all cases, that the lie did in fact protect, then there would be imo a very strong argument for it's supplanting the maxim against lying. But it doesn't hold in all cases - it can't, and therefore it lacks the strength it needs. Apparently Kant did agree that while you weren't allowed to lie, you could refuse to answer. — tim wood

I agree, the flexibility of Kant's ethics is lacking incredibly. Especially against theories devised by Aristotle and other theories such as moral realist theories.

Are we? Of what? Of yourself? Of others? Of fear, dread and sorrow? — Heiko

Free to make our own choices, evidently.

I do truly think that with 'free will' comes evil and with that comes sin. This is because to be able to have free will, you must have the desire or will to do that which is good and bad meaning that it is innate in the 'freeness' of your will.

My point is that the various possible choices are already chosen for us. From which, follows the effect of the choice.

I don't believe so.

I agree, Logical evidence and physical evidence are the best thing we have to go one right now. It is how we develop most theories about the world and existence itself.

Also, I feel as though free will is just as unfalsifiable as determinism from the points I had raised earlier. Free will is just as 'cause and effect' as determinisim. As I explained before, my view is that we cannot comprehend what 'free' truly is and as a result we also cannot comprehend 'free will'. There is no evidence for it therefore it is unfalsifiable and is meaningless. There is more physical evidence for hard determinism than there is free will. You didn't choose how your cells were aligned to create a human body. You didn't will your existence or anyone else's existence. Hard determinism states causes of our behaviour and personality, genetic makeup, and essentially how we came to be. These are decisions already made for us evidently. We do not know what free is in my opinion.

As I said you have your opinion and you evidently can't get over the fact that other people have opinions that differ from yours.

I think you got twisted up in this sentence. Try again. — tim wood

Again, sorry. My point, anyway, is that Kantian ethics is way too objective and as a result of this, it becomes inflexible. He has put in place rules such as the First and Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative that cannot be denied or disobeyed otherwise you are being immoral.

What is a moral problem that is not situation dependent? — tim wood

There isn't any. That's my point. Moral dilemmas are situational and I don't think Kantian ethics can deal with them effectively.

Your statement here shows how little thought you have put into this, we are very much shaped by the other humans around us. — Jeremiah

Considering I am literally behind a computer trying to learn, No I haven't thought much about it. I am pretty much thinking about it as I go along as to make an educated minuet on what I have learned. Just because I don't agree with your point of view doesn't make mine incorrect.

I also notice how you manage to tiptoe around the rest of my comment by not responding. In any case, If determinism is not true then everything would be chaos and we would be able to do the unimaginable which is why I think we are unable to comprehend what free means. Having free will is having the ability to act on one's own discretion with no factors influencing it, including the environment, Laws of physics, Laws of Humanity, Society and more... we are not free to do what we want. It is evident to me.

Sorry for the confusion - Kant's maxims are supposed to be universalized meaning that it cannot be illogical or self-contradictory if everyone were to act on a maxim. As a result, there is not much flexibility here. Also, a maxim must not be one that uses a person as a means to your ends and vice versa, these are moral rules, I believe, which limit the flexibility that Kantian ethics has in terms of situations that are more personal. What of those moral dilemmas that depend on a situation to be relevant?

The universes being identical is key here because the indentical people will make the same choices because they are identical in every way down to every thought. — Thehoneyman

I completely agree - I must have misunderstood you. Sorry about that. What I thought was smart was that, using the point that the parallel universes are exactly alike, we would be making the very same decision in all of these universes no matter the circumstances. This again shows a lack of understanding of 'free' because decisions are always preemptively made for us. And if the environmental circumstances were different then the nature of the decision would change which would then lead the person back to another preemptively made 'choice'. It may be that you punched the person in the face and now you have to make another decision between two decisions that would not have been the same had you not punched him in the face.

If hard determinism were true, and I am an external agent then by your standards my function would be to tell you what to believe and you would have to comply, — Jeremiah

That has no correlation. Because you are an external agent with no free will you are then able to tell people what they can and can't believe to which they must comply to? If hard determinism were true, the function of decision making doesn't then fall into the hands of a normal human being.

Gods are fantasies created by human imagination; it is not that hard to understand. — Jeremiah

I'm not arguing on that. I agree. So I don't know where I showed a failure to understand.

In fact I think this could be considered a counter example against the concept of hard determinism. If I push a rock it has no choice but to roll the direction I will it; however, if that rock could resist my push then that is something else. — Jeremiah

If you push a rock in a direction it moves that direction through gravity ... Without the sarcasm - There are only a limited of directions that rock can go. So how are you free to make a decision of where the rock goes. If you push it over a mountain in England, it doesn't suddenly end up in China even if were using your 'free will' to 'decide' that it would go to China after pushing of this rock in England.

If you don't know what free means in the context of free will, then how is it possible you have empirical evidence against it? — Jeremiah

That logic can be used for the existence of God. And I do have my thoughts in order, I don't think you have any right to tell me what I should believe. I am just posing points here, not getting hostile.

Anyway, as I was saying, humans cannot understand the concept of free - even in free will - just like we cannot understand the concept of God. We may know what it is or have an idea of these things, but we do not truly understand it because we have not experienced it as you have just suggested to me -

then how is it possible you have empirical evidence against it? — Jeremiah

This is contradictory. To say "God is unintelligible to the human intellect" is to say something meaningful about God. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree with this - Ayer said anything that is unfalsifiable (Which is proven by theological statements about God) has no meaning.

Say I did an experiment with 3 identicle mes in 3 identicle universes. I ask them all that question. They'd all answer exactly the same. It was predetermined. — Thehoneyman

This is actually really smart, In multiple universes we would have probably made the same decision meaning that it couldn't possibly be us that freely made it? Is that what you are trying to say?

I thought someone would bring up that objection :lol:, In any case its hard to believe that we are really free if we already have the choices preemptively chosen for us. Such as; If we were lost driving down a road and come to a fork. The choice is limited between two junctions only. I personally believe that we don't even know what the concept of Free is. We cannot truly understand it if our choices are preemptively chosen for us to make a decision based on what we have been given.

It's not nearly as clear cut as you make it sound. — Ying

I understand this but, nothing is clear cut in philosophy.

It is still a form of evidence that we should not ignore. Just because it is partial does not mean it did not happen. He asked for evidence and I gave it to him. If he wishes to read the full study then it would be beneficial to his search for knowledge.

There is physical proof that the brain makes decisions before we carry out an action, therefore we do not have free will - is one form of evidence that is empirically undeniable.

In terms of maxims, don't you think that there are so many rules for a maxim to be appropriate that the inflexibility forces morality to be set rules?

Maybe utilitarianism isn't an appropriate moral framework for individuals. — Bitter Crank

This is interesting. So, in a sense morality is different depending on the amount of people that it effects. In which sense the flexibility of Utilitarianism is useful for many people. In terms of maxims, don't you think that there are so many rules for a maxim to be appropriate that the inflexibility forces morality to be set rules?

God (for people on both sides of the debate) is a powerful little word. It addresses much more than dogma and history. — Mariner

I completely agree with this. The stigma around the word God is the main problem with 'Does God exist?' debates.

Will has to be free because otherwise it would not be "will" but an effect. It's nature is purely ideal. — Heiko

The very definition of 'Will' is the faculty by which a person makes a decision. However, a decision can be free OR forced. Not every will is free. Decisions are limited as it is, we don't yet understand the concept of free I believe. If you really consider it. Do we even know what free is?

So when I play a game of chess and think, say, 10 minutes about my next move, don't you think the thought-process that I am aware of is a significant contribution to the deciding factors which move I actually take? — Heiko

The thought process is a factor, but as I said, it is an unconscious occurrence. Hence, you may think that you haven't yet made the decision, but it already has been made for you. Furthermore, is it not possible that the possibilities that you have been given in the game of chess (moves that you can make) were already put in hand, which would therefore imply that our choices have been limited. From this point you have to ask yourself. Are we really free?

Right, I finally understand. So what is your main standpoint then? That God exists or he doesn't exist?

This presupposes a meaning of "physical" that turns the sentence above into something tautologous. If we eschew this meaning and examine the issue more closely (see observation above), we see that the non-physical interacts with the physical all the time, non-stop. — Mariner

Ah, But are these concepts interacting with us, or are they just concepts that we posit to understand what we are talking about. Just like what we do with the word 'God'. I admit that these concepts show that they are able to have an impact on our experiences but are they correct to use in this sense? "Justice", "Beauty" and "Knowledge" are all concepts that don't necessarily effect us directly like the impact of a quickly moving train, or a hard hit on the head from a ball. The way in which these concepts and sensations are used are completely different. For someone to say "I feel beautiful" is not the same as feeling a piece of wood for the first time.

Quite simply, we should re-examine the dogma :D that the non-physical cannot interact with the physical. Let's do it by steps. What does "physical" mean? — Mariner

"Physical" is something relating directly to the senses. Something that we directly observe.

God himself is not falsifiable or fallible. Therefore, the meaning is completely lost, no? — GreyScorpio

Fallible was the wrong word to use here. Couldn't think of the other one. Sorry :lol:

Then how am I to learn about your opinion?

Alright, So, If God can not be comprehended in a physical sense then that means that, logically, he can have no effect on human experience I believe? The non-physical cannot interact with the physical. If this is true then the truth of creation is not implying, suggesting or effecting anything about human experience. How can we truly understand things like this if we have no experience of such? Leading from this, if we have no empirical evidence, then does this not mean that it is not falsifiable? Ayer proposed the argument that religious language is not meaningful unless falsifiable, and according to the scripture itself, as we have just discovered, God himself is not falsifiable or fallible. Therefore, the meaning is completely lost, no?

In another attempt, if God cannot be comprehended in a physical sense, then what sense do we comprehend such a being to be able to parade his existence. "God is watching over us", "God is speaking to me" implying that he is interacting with the physical and this seems to be entirely impossible and God cannot do the impossible. So what are we to believe?

Would you care to explain to me how?

As in God cannot be comprehended in a material/physical sense.

3 : transcending the universe or material existence — compare immanent — Mariner

Thank you! So, I'm guessing that you are referring to the definition that I have quoted? If so then I'm also guessing that 'transcending the universe or material existence' also means that he is beyond material comprehension?