Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 12:00 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ethics
#11
RE: Ethics
(March 29, 2015 at 11:50 am)Dystopia Wrote: BTW everyone - How do I quote like in the former system? When I click the quote button it changes from + to - but nothing happens.
In the line that pops up under the reply window, click on the words "Quote these now."
Reply
#12
RE: Ethics
Even if moral realism was true that wouldn't solve ethical dilemmas. There is a whole cottage industry in moral philosophy build around Trolley problem, other ethical dilemma thought experiments, and value pluralism which is not to be confused with relativism.
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot

We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Reply
#13
RE: Ethics
(March 29, 2015 at 1:22 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: That is a ridiculous standard, both because it can never be met, due to the fact that there is probably nothing upon which everyone agrees (ever hear of the Flat Earth Society?), and also because it is generally irrelevant to what is true.  Agreement does not mean that one has reached the truth.
I'm more or less saying that in other fields of inquiry we are given a set of axioms that cannot be denied less we fall into self-refutation. If defining "goodness" or "rightness" was actually in any way comparable to determining facts such as the shape of the earth, we would be living in a much different world.
(March 29, 2015 at 1:22 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Also, "mind-independent" does not mean the same thing as "objective."  "People have minds" is an objective statement (whether it is true or false), and it clearly deals with minds, so it is not "mind-independent."
"People have minds" is an objective statement because its truth value doesn't depend on any single person's biases, feelings, or interpretations, and in that sense, is "mind-independent."

"Health and wealth are the greatest goods," on the other hand, is a claim of which the truth depends entirely on the attitudes and feelings of the person assessing it.
(March 29, 2015 at 1:22 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Now, if you want to use the phrase "ethical objectivism" in a nonstandard way, I cannot stop you from doing so, but if you want to effectively communicate with others, it is good to keep to standard usage of expressions as much as possible.
To clarify, I'm speaking of ethical theories that purport moral statements to contain the same value of "truthiness" as claims of objective fact, as in the examples pertaining to beer that you provided, or the three-dimensional geometry of planets.
(March 29, 2015 at 1:22 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: As for the concept of solvable, you are going to have a very hard time determining whether or not I drank a gallon of beer yesterday.  Your inability to solve the problem (or, if you prefer, your inability to know the truth or falsehood of the statement) has no bearing on whether it is true or false.  Likewise, if Bentham is correct, it is entirely possible that you may never know it.
Right. My point is that nobody presumes this is the case when it comes to ethical disagreements. Everyone then becomes an expert at what ought to be.
(March 29, 2015 at 1:22 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Ethics and religion are two separate areas of thought, which you should know from having read Plato's Euthyphro.
What gave you the impression that god or religion even entered my mind here?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Reply
#14
RE: Ethics
(March 30, 2015 at 3:14 am)Nestor Wrote:
(March 29, 2015 at 1:22 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: That is a ridiculous standard, both because it can never be met, due to the fact that there is probably nothing upon which everyone agrees (ever hear of the Flat Earth Society?), and also because it is generally irrelevant to what is true.  Agreement does not mean that one has reached the truth.

I'm more or less saying that in other fields of inquiry we are given a set of axioms that cannot be denied less we fall into self-refutation. If defining "goodness" or "rightness" was actually in any way comparable to determining facts such as the shape of the earth, we would be living in a much different world. 

You are begging the question with that.  You are assuming that they are not matters of fact, but have given no evidence for that claim.  However common it may be to believe what you believe, that isn't evidence that you are correct.

Where is your proof, for example, that Bentham is wrong?

(March 30, 2015 at 3:14 am)Nestor Wrote:
(March 29, 2015 at 1:22 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Also, "mind-independent" does not mean the same thing as "objective."  "People have minds" is an objective statement (whether it is true or false), and it clearly deals with minds, so it is not "mind-independent."

"People have minds" is an objective statement because its truth value doesn't depend on any single person's biases, feelings, or interpretations, and in that sense, is "mind-independent." 

"Health and wealth are the greatest goods," on the other hand, is a claim of which the truth depends entirely on the attitudes and feelings of the person assessing it. 

Again, you are begging the question.  Someone like Bentham would tell you that the truth or falsehood of the claim "health and wealth are the greatest goods" is not dependent upon anyone's assessment.  Bentham would say that the truth or falsehood of it is determined by whether it leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number or not.  It makes no difference what anyone's personal opinion is about it, according to Bentham.

(March 30, 2015 at 3:14 am)Nestor Wrote:
(March 29, 2015 at 1:22 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Now, if you want to use the phrase "ethical objectivism" in a nonstandard way, I cannot stop you from doing so, but if you want to effectively communicate with others, it is good to keep to standard usage of expressions as much as possible.

To clarify, I'm speaking of ethical theories that purport moral statements to contain the same value of "truthiness" as claims of objective fact, as in the examples pertaining to beer that you provided, or the three-dimensional geometry of planets. 

According to Bentham, the truth or falsehood of ethical claims is objective in the same way.  It is a question of whether the thing in question promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number.  It is not dependent on how anyone in particular feels about the thing, or whether anyone believes it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number.  It is objective, according to Bentham.  (And, again, his view is just one example; I am neither endorsing his view nor am I saying he is wrong.)

(March 30, 2015 at 3:14 am)Nestor Wrote:
(March 29, 2015 at 1:22 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: As for the concept of solvable, you are going to have a very hard time determining whether or not I drank a gallon of beer yesterday.  Your inability to solve the problem (or, if you prefer, your inability to know the truth or falsehood of the statement) has no bearing on whether it is true or false.  Likewise, if Bentham is correct, it is entirely possible that you may never know it.

Right. My point is that nobody presumes this is the case when it comes to ethical disagreements.

There have been many philosophers who have written on ethics and have thought that they have given the right answer.  And many have thought that they have given sufficient reasons why others should agree with them.  Dismissing them offhand is not a proof that they are wrong; it is just begging the question.

(March 30, 2015 at 3:14 am)Nestor Wrote:  Everyone then becomes an expert at what ought to be. 

Many people believe they are experts on ethics.  But that does not make them experts on it.

It is a very curious thing, but very often, in philosophy, people imagine themselves to be experts on various topics, without bothering to have studied them.

(March 30, 2015 at 3:14 am)Nestor Wrote:
(March 29, 2015 at 1:22 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Ethics and religion are two separate areas of thought, which you should know from having read Plato's Euthyphro.

What gave you the impression that god or religion even entered my mind here?

I do not know if it entered your mind or not, but, not only has it certainly has entered the mind of someone in this thread, it is a common thing for religionists to claim that it is only through religion that there can be an objective morality, and many atheists who reject an objective morality seem to accept that claim.  So I may be being pro-active in your case, but we are not the only ones in this thread, so it is worth mentioning for the benefit of others who might be reading this.

For the benefit of others who might be reading this:

To be clear, whether there is an objective morality or not is entirely independent of whether or not there is a god.  The only kind of morality for which god would be important would be one in which morality depends on god, as, for example, in the divine command theory, in which a thing is good if god commands it, and bad if god commands one not to do it.  It may be called the "bully theory of morality" or the "might makes right theory of morality," as one does what god says because god will get you if you don't.  For more on that theory, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory

But most ethical theories do not depend on there being a god at all, and most are not incompatible with there being a god (e.g., utilitarianism, Kantianism, etc.).

"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
Reply
#15
RE: Ethics
(March 30, 2015 at 3:06 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: You are begging the question with that.  You are assuming that they are not matters of fact, but have given no evidence for that claim.  However common it may be to believe what you believe, that isn't evidence that you are correct.
So, you think that if I make a claim to fact, the burden is on you to disprove it? You seem to be speaking under the presumption that Bentham had special authority to simply assert a definition of "greatest good" that everyone who disagrees with utilitarianism is not qualified to simply dismiss.
(March 30, 2015 at 3:06 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Where is your proof, for example, that Bentham is wrong?
Proof for a definition that is not demonstrative? How does that work?
(March 30, 2015 at 3:06 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Again, you are begging the question.  Someone like Bentham would tell you that the truth or falsehood of the claim "health and wealth are the greatest goods" is not dependent upon anyone's assessment.  Bentham would say that the truth or falsehood of it is determined by whether it leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number or not.  It makes no difference what anyone's personal opinion is about it, according to Bentham.
You mean, rather, that it makes no difference what anyone's personal opinion about it is, except for Bentham's. All you've done is replace one fiat assertion ("Health and wealth are...") with another ("If it leads to the greatest happiness..."). This is the problem with objectivist theories that I outlined in the OP. It would seem as though they are the ones actually begging the question.
(March 30, 2015 at 3:06 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: There have been many philosophers who have written on ethics and have thought that they have given the right answer.  And many have thought that they have given sufficient reasons why others should agree with them.  Dismissing them offhand is not a proof that they are wrong; it is just begging the question.
The same is easily said against anyone who defines "the right answer" according to their own preference. All this is, is definition on the basis of personal appeal, whereas with objective facts, we discover principles and relationships through the demonstration of definitions derived from external forces. I'm not saying one cannot perceive events that lead to happiness for the greatest number and measure an ethical theory by such a definition, I'm suggesting that you can't demonstrate this to be a more valid description of goodness than any other.
(March 30, 2015 at 3:06 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: I do not know if it entered your mind or not, but, not only has it certainly has entered the mind of someone in this thread, it is a common thing for religionists to claim that it is only through religion that there can be an objective morality, and many atheists who reject an objective morality seem to accept that claim.  So I may be being pro-active in your case, but we are not the only ones in this thread, so it is worth mentioning for the benefit of others who might be reading this.

For the benefit of others who might be reading this:

To be clear, whether there is an objective morality or not is entirely independent of whether or not there is a god.  The only kind of morality for which god would be important would be one in which morality depends on god, as, for example, in the divine command theory, in which a thing is good if god commands it, and bad if god commands one not to do it.  It may be called the "bully theory of morality" or the "might makes right theory of morality," as one does what god says because god will get you if you don't.  For more on that theory, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory

But most ethical theories do not depend on there being a god at all, and most are not incompatible with there being a god (e.g., utilitarianism, Kantianism, etc.).
The only difference, as I see it, between placing "objective morality" in a standard imposed by god rather than man, is that god would presumably have access to relevant facts not available to people. I don't see how objectivity is acquired or justified.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Reply
#16
RE: Ethics
I think far too much of thinking dwells in the past before the knowledge of natural human evolution. We have always displayed the same range of human behaviors no matter our labels.

I can not define "ethics" in any philosophical sense. I can describe them in universal human desires. We all group. We all need resources. We all have a desire to be free from harm from others. And like it or not, part of that is also our desire to bitch when we do not like things.

I think secular law in the west, while not perfect is more suited to our evolutionary diversity than religious fascism and or political correctness on the left.

If I have any one absolute "ethic" it is not to force others to like others, but always know that we are not as different as we would like to believe as a species. None of us is getting off this dot in mass anytime soon. I think it is far more important to shift our priorities away from demanding taboos of others and stick to problem solving with overlap and put the bitching on the back burner.

I certainly am for verbally standing up to bigotry and violence in the name of religion. But I am not entitled to be free from others offending me.
Reply
#17
RE: Ethics
" I'm suggesting that you can't demonstrate this to be a more valid description of goodness than any other."
I get it. You're disagreeing over the conceptual analysis of "moral goodness" not the definition. You're demanding sufficient evidence for believing the conceptual analysis is correct.
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot

We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Reply
#18
RE: Ethics
(March 30, 2015 at 3:41 pm)Nestor Wrote:
(March 30, 2015 at 3:06 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: You are begging the question with that.  You are assuming that they are not matters of fact, but have given no evidence for that claim.  However common it may be to believe what you believe, that isn't evidence that you are correct.

So, you think that if I make a claim to fact, the burden is on you to disprove it? You seem to be speaking under the presumption that Bentham had special authority to simply assert a definition of "greatest good" that everyone who disagrees with utilitarianism is not qualified to simply dismiss.
...

You made the claim that there is no objective morality.  Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to support that.  You have done nothing to show that it is true.  Which means, you are simply begging the question.

You assert several such statements, but do nothing to show that they are true.  For example, you claim:

""Health and wealth are the greatest goods," on the other hand, is a claim of which the truth depends entirely on the attitudes and feelings of the person assessing it."

You have given no reason whatsoever to suppose that the truth or falsity of "Health and wealth are the greatest goods" depends on the attitudes and feelings of the person assessing it.  Where is your evidence to support such an assertion?  

If you were to say, different people do assess it differently, that is no proof of anything, as people disagree on matters of fact all of the time.


As for Bentham, he was originally mentioned as an example that demonstrated that the first part of your opening post was false; namely, this:

"It seems to me that the trouble with objectivist theories of morality are twofold: 1) It doesn't address the question as to what "the good" actually is..." 

Objectivist theories often do address the question of what the good is, as in Bentham's case.  Whether Bentham is correct or not is irrelevant to the fact that he does address the question that you say he doesn't.


Also, I have repeatedly stated that I am not endorsing his theory, and I have never said he has any special authority.  I am certainly not asking you or anyone else to take Bentham's word on this, and I have not bothered with his reasoning on the subject, because I am not interested in either endorsing his views or in finding fault with them in the present thread.  He has just been used as an example for the sake of convenience, but without in any way suggesting that he is in fact correct.

"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
Reply
#19
RE: burden of proof hot potato
Quote:You made the claim that there is no objective morality.  Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to support that.  You have done nothing to show that it is true.  Which means, you are simply begging the question.

Do you have an argument for moral realism or not? I'm tired of people using the burden of proof as an excuse to not add anything to a dialogue. 
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot

We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Reply
#20
RE: Ethics
I hate this stupid idea, and I even get it from atheists too, that our behavior does not come from prior species which it is clear that it does. Other primates display emotions like love, and cooperation, and cheating and anger. Instead of anyone assuming that means we should value no rules or do whatever you want or be violent just because we accept we are animals too is absurd.

I think the fact most humans don't think in those terms allows for our selfishness and lends us to the dark side of evolution which leads us far to much to the quick satisfaction of violence to problem solve. We literally need more in our species to accept none of us are the center of the planet or the universe. We need more humans to look for overlap instead of always worrying about others not liking us. We need more humans understanding there is no such thing as a religious, political or business utopia where everyone will always be on the same page.

I can only say that the west is more suited to diversity than fascism and reflects more of the good side of our species.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Ethics of Neutrality John 6IX Breezy 16 1134 November 20, 2023 at 8:40 am
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  Ethics of Fashion John 6IX Breezy 60 3681 August 9, 2022 at 3:11 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  [Serious] Ethics Disagreeable 44 3824 March 23, 2022 at 7:09 pm
Last Post: deepend
  Machine Intelligence and Human Ethics BrianSoddingBoru4 24 1826 May 28, 2019 at 1:23 pm
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  What is the point of multiple types of ethics? Macoleco 12 1100 October 2, 2018 at 12:35 pm
Last Post: robvalue
  Trolley Problem/Consistency in Ethics vulcanlogician 150 17807 January 30, 2018 at 11:01 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  (LONG) "I Don't Know" as a Good Answer in Ethics vulcanlogician 69 8401 November 27, 2017 at 1:10 am
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  what are you ethics based on justin 50 16320 February 24, 2017 at 8:30 pm
Last Post: ignoramus
  The Compatibility Of Three Approachs To Ethics Edwardo Piet 18 3125 October 2, 2016 at 5:23 am
Last Post: Kernel Sohcahtoa
  Utilitarianism and Population Ethics Edwardo Piet 10 1714 April 24, 2016 at 3:45 am
Last Post: robvalue



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)