Thread: The Art of Ethics *highbrow alert*

Originally Posted by Seraphim

#1- There always MUST exist some REASON for people to act morally. If there is no impetous to do so, people will not do so of their own accord. Debating ethics is one thing. Thinking about doing the right things is a far cry from living in that manner. Left to our own devices we would not give a wet slap about what was "right" or wrong. We'd all look out for #1.

#2- Not all are called to be writers. The council of Nicea was conviened to correct false teachings that had sprung up in regards to Christianity (Arianism), not to compile a summer reading list for the Emperor

[QUOTE=Seraphim;218560]
The council of nicea was convened to weed out all gospels and teachings that diverged with the groupthink of the christian leadership.
And it happened 300 years after Jesus' death, so noone really knew or knows what happened.
And the remaining 4 gospels contain enough inconsistencies to sustain this uncertainty

Originally Posted by Seraphim

#3- Ever see the sunrise? What direction does it come from? Is it the same for everybody? Perhaps the same dynamic would come into play.

Interesting point. I hadn't thought of this yet.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

#4- A pretty bogus argument, since God does not ask us to peel the skin off of our children, that is pure philosophical posturing. And as far as things being right just because God "says so". I put alot more faith in what God decides as right and wrong than anything any person, group of people/scholars/ethicists could ever come up with.

The thing is, of course, that noone know what God thinks. We follow our own interpretation / conclusions, or that of people we trust for one reason or the other.
Bishiops and popes did a lot of things because 'God Wills It' If they were wrong then, they could be wrong now, and they sure could have been wrong during the convention of Nicae.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Some people/tribes participate in cannabalism. To them it is morally right to do so. Does that then make it right? As an ethicist can you come up with universally agreed upon things that are "right" for everybody? Have you ever had any cannibals present at these discussions? How about people who commit incest? Are thay invited to the discussions for an equal vote on what is "right" according to human decision?

Generally, what happens is that such systems / societal norms are built by majority vote. and when different systems collide, the susrviving ones are usually the better ones (regarding long term surivival).
There are medical reasons to disallow canibalism, but it really boils down to the decision of the majority.
If you don't like those rules, you are generally free to leave your country to try and find a place where you fit in.

If I were to look up the Sharia as divine law, I could never hope to instate it here in Europe, but I am free to leave europe and go to Syria.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

#5- This is the $60,000 question, as they cannot all be correct. One of them is The Truth. You cannot say that they are all false just because not all of them are true.

Ah. But this is the big one indeed.
I have had long discussions with a devout catholic friend of mine.
He is of course convince he is right, as am I that I am right.
But we could find middle ground in the fact that all of our knowledge is inperfect, and even if it was not, we could never hope to understand God(s) or his reasons for creating the universe, if there is any.
So in the end you try to live by what you feel is right. If you are honest in doing so, then everything might work out in the end, whether you are christian, muslim or pagan.

People bickering over religion are like gnats looking through a sheet of colored glass-in-lead from different locations, arguing about the color of what they see inside.
We have no way of knowing the big picture, and are sometimes too proud to admit that noone is seeing the real image.

Originally Posted by Bruno

We have no way of knowing the big picture, and are sometimes too proud to admit that noone is seeing the real image.

If I can't see the big picture, then nobody can. I think that takes a little bit of pride as well - it's really difficult to say what is or isn't possible, isn't it?

Actually, during my time as a full-time philosopher* I have developer an entirely separate theory of ethics:

I call these the Three Infallible Rules of Human Nature
1. People do what they want.
2. If they want conflicting things, the stronger want wins.
3. Most people are highly unaware of this, and try to offer more complicated explanations.

As such, it is my belief that any other explanation of ethics is highly illusory and just muddies the waters. (no offense, KP) Ranging from the monotheist with his hard and fast list of what's ok and what's not, to the Left Hand Path adherent who lives by the rule "as long as thou harm no one, do as thou wilt," to the atheist who views ethics as an evolutionary check-valve; all are basically playing by the same underlying rules (as stated above) without realizing it.

* the English word "philosopher" comes from "philo-sophos" a Greek phrase meaning "not otherwise usefully employed"

Originally Posted by jockeys

Actually, during my time as a full-time philosopher* I have developer an entirely separate theory of ethics:

I call these the Three Infallible Rules of Human Nature
1. People do what they want.
2. If they want conflicting things, the stronger want wins.
3. Most people are highly unaware of this, and try to offer more complicated explanations.

...

* the English word "philosopher" comes from "philo-sophos" a Greek phrase meaning "not otherwise usefully employed"

But throw in the factor that people can choose to change, and even the wary will try to offer more complicated explanations

Every non-usefully employed man and woman will at some point ask, "What drives my wants, and if I change them, was it because something forced me to do so or because I chose to do so? Am I a product of my will or is my will a product of circumstance?"

I contend that the usefully employed will simply live the answers to these questions without having to ask them to do so

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

But throw in the factor that people can choose to change, and even the wary will try to offer more complicated explanations

inevitably, they are changing because they want to.

Originally Posted by jockeys

Actually, during my time as a full-time philosopher* I have developer an entirely separate theory of ethics:

I call these the Three Infallible Rules of Human Nature
1. People do what they want.
2. If they want conflicting things, the stronger want wins.
3. Most people are highly unaware of this, and try to offer more complicated explanations.

As such, it is my belief that any other explanation of ethics is highly illusory and just muddies the waters. (no offense, KP) Ranging from the monotheist with his hard and fast list of what's ok and what's not, to the Left Hand Path adherent who lives by the rule "as long as thou harm no one, do as thou wilt," to the atheist who views ethics as an evolutionary check-valve; all are basically playing by the same underlying rules (as stated above) without realizing it.

* the English word "philosopher" comes from "philo-sophos" a Greek phrase meaning "not otherwise usefully employed"

I thought it came from the Greek Phi-Losopho which means: "In need of a towel" but I could be misstaken. (disclaimer...you might not get that one unless you're very well versed in the Discworld books)

As for your statements......well duh

People aren't going to be motivated because the DON'T want to do something. The question in all of this is....



WHY do they want it?

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

WHY do they want it?

because at some level, they find it rewarding. to quote the good Doctor:

"There is no such thing as 'moral' Right. There is only true Right, the balance of the Natural Law, Lex Talionis, versus aquired Right, bestowed by popular consensus and usage. Morality is a human invention conferred by the self-serving interests of the sensually impoverished."

Originally Posted by jockeys

because at some level, they find it rewarding.

So basically, they want it because they want it. I like that

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

As a scholar, I type more often than I speak, and can type as fast as I think, sometimes faster. Sometimes I get cramps in my wrists, but I just shake it out and keep going, usually being slightly frustrated that I had to stop. That said, it did take me a couple of hours to type this all up.

Sounds like you need a more ergonomic keyboard.