There could be a situation where it's ethical for us to end our race. Motive has to be considered. I believe there is no situation where ending your own species which still wants to survive merely to entertain yourself, is ethical.

(April 13, 2012 at 10:06 am)genkaus Wrote:

(April 13, 2012 at 9:52 am)mediamogul Wrote: FTR this is where a philosophy class would help. You need some foundational concepts before it makes sense to talk about "objective" morality.

Plato believed that things existed as they "actually are" in a perfect realm beyond this one. He called them "Forms". For instance we have many "chairs" that we can interact with in our normal world of sense perception. Plato believed that somewhere existed essence of "chairness" in the realm of forms which can be accessed by use of our reason. This is called Metaphysics (study of the nature of Being) and Epistemology (study of Knowledge or our ability to know). These are the two foundational principles needed prior to asking about "objective" morality. Is there an essence of "Humaness" that predefines, before a human exists, what a "perfect" human would do? Generally this concept requires a being to have pre-concieved humans before creating them. The famous saying is that "essence precedes existence". Sartre turned this on it's head and said that humans define "Humaness" by existing, "existence precedes essence" which is where the term "existentialism" came from.

This is a basic starting point. I have found it very difficulty to generate a working system of ethics that wasn't based more on rights than actual normative ethics. It's hard to command others to act in a certain way when you believe that ethics are not absolute so it is more about rights to behave in certain ways provided they don't impede others rights and don't cause unnecessary suffering.

Every philosophy consists of metaphysics and epistemology. Plato's particular approach was called idealism. Its opposite came much before Sartre - from Aristotle.

Ethics most certainly depends upon the metaphysics and epistemology you choose to accept. Most often, I find that the "revealed" ethical doctrines - such as those of Christianity - accept Plato's Idealism as their basis.

This is absolutely true. I was saying that the most famous espousal of this point was by Sartre in his stating that existence precedes essence.

Existentialsim and Human Emotions by Sartre is a short read and a great text for an argument for ethics without god or absolutism.

I take issue with the concept of existence before essence. I see them as two necessary parts of any unity.

(April 13, 2012 at 11:40 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Who was it that said that all modern philosophy is merely commentary on Plato versus Aristotle? Some, like Aquinis, choose to accept revelation as a supplement to a rational inquiry, but I do not believe Idealism requires a revelatory component. A purely rational inquiry could potentially infer the presense of a formal aspect to reality, or so I hope (Don't worry I'm not blowing you off, GK, I'm still trying to get my nomenclature right).

On the contrary, under idealism rational inquiry would automatically be secondary and inferior to revelation as a source of knowledge. Rational inquiries require the knowledge to come from perceptions and our mind, which, if idealism is true, are imperfect copies of a perfect things somewhere else. Therefore, the knowledge gained by them would by its nature be imperfect as well. Revelation, on the other hand, would be knowledge gained directly from the "ideal" reality and would therefore be better than the one achieved by rational inquiry.

(April 13, 2012 at 2:08 pm)genkaus Wrote: On the contrary, under idealism rational inquiry would automatically be secondary and inferior to revelation as a source of knowledge...the knowledge gained by them [reason] would by its nature be imperfect as well. Revelation, on the other hand, would be knowledge gained directly from the "ideal" reality and would therefore be better than the one achieved by rational inquiry.

I hear what you're saying, but....we must use our reason, however limited that may be, to validate the legitimacy of various revelations and evaluate the implications of them. As a practical matter, reason is still our primary tool for inquiry.

(April 13, 2012 at 2:25 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I hear what you're saying, but....we must use our reason, however limited that may be, to validate the legitimacy of various revelations and evaluate the implications of them. As a practical matter, reason is still our primary tool for inquiry.

I'm sorry, but that position would be dishonest. If you accept Idealism, you know that you have two tools of inquiry - one perfect (revelation), another imperfect (reason). Knowing this, how can you honestly choose the imperfect one?

(April 13, 2012 at 2:33 pm)genkaus Wrote: If you accept Idealism...you have two tools of inquiry - one perfect (revelation), another imperfect (reason). Knowing this, how can you honestly choose the imperfect one?

Maybe I don't fully understand. Suppose I believe the Karma Sutra is a divinely revealed text. How do I really know it's a product of revelation or just another...mmhuh...self-help book? Likewise if I see a vision of Thor, which would be awesome by the way, I would use my rational capacity trying to decide if those mushrooms I ate were 'blue meanies' or if it actually was the son of Odin.

I see morality as less about finding a set of fixed universal rules for behaviour and more about choosing sides with reference to a recognizable moral standard to which I refer. Such a moral standard would be an at least partially discernable part of reality. I see in reality a creative self-organizing principle struggling to overcome entropy. The creative side, at all levels of reality strives to form wholes from disparate parts: harmonious integrity. Once I have learned to recognize that inherently creative trait of reality, I face the Choice. Do I become a Jedi or a Sith? While I might not make an explicit decision, my actions would still reveal a tacit preference. Either I align myself with effort of reality to manifest harmonious integrity or I give in to the pressures driving everything into chaos and disintegrity. While an Aristotelian pursuit of happiness serves as motivation to seek virtue the standard for evaluative virtue, in people and of situations, is the degree of harmonious integrity found. I could say much more about this but I wanted to put it out there for you all.

(April 13, 2012 at 3:09 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Maybe I don't fully understand. Suppose I believe the Karma Sutra is a divinely revealed text. How do I really know it's a product of revelation or just another...mmhuh...self-help book? Likewise if I see a vision of Thor, which would be awesome by the way, I would use my rational capacity trying to decide if those mushrooms I ate were 'blue meanies' or if it actually was the son of Odin.

But rational inquiry will not help you there. Since it is imperfect, it may identify a false revelation as true or a true one as false. You'd simply have to take it on faith.

---

(April 13, 2012 at 7:21 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I see morality as less about finding a set of fixed universal rules for behaviour and more about choosing sides with reference to a recognizable moral standard to which I refer. Such a moral standard would be an at least partially discernable part of reality. I see in reality a creative self-organizing principle struggling to overcome entropy. The creative side, at all levels of reality strives to form wholes from disparate parts: harmonious integrity. Once I have learned to recognize that inherently creative trait of reality, I face the Choice. Do I become a Jedi or a Sith? While I might not make an explicit decision, my actions would still reveal a tacit preference. Either I align myself with effort of reality to manifest harmonious integrity or I give in to the pressures driving everything into chaos and disintegrity. While an Aristotelian pursuit of happiness serves as motivation to seek virtue the standard for evaluative virtue, in people and of situations, is the degree of harmonious integrity found. I could say much more about this but I wanted to put it out there for you all.

You lose me about halfway through. As said before Ethics would depend upon metaphysics and epistemology and you seem to have some weird metaphysical ideas which give rise to our morality. So, what do you mean by "harmonious integrity" and how does this overcome Hume's is-ought problem?

(April 13, 2012 at 7:31 pm)genkaus Wrote: Since it is imperfect, it may identify a false revelation as true or a true one as false. You'd simply have to take it on faith.

I think you confuse making reasonable assumptions in the face of absolute certainty with venturing guesses that defy inquiry.

(April 13, 2012 at 7:31 pm)genkaus Wrote: You lose me about halfway through....you seem to have some weird metaphysical ideas ...

I'll take that as a compliment. Seriously though, I prefer to believe my metaphysics isn't really all that strange, just difficult to express with up-to-date terminology.

(April 13, 2012 at 7:31 pm)genkaus Wrote: So, what do you mean by "harmonious integrity" and how does this overcome Hume's is-ought problem?

I'm basically starting with Aristotle by saying that people do what they think will make them happy. That raises the question of what moral standard best informs that decision? Everyone to a greater or lesser extent recognizes the 'is' of specific factual traits in nature. From these traits, they choose to either cultivate those traits in themselves as virtues or avoid doing so.

The traits of reality related to and required by life include integrity, the unity of parts into larger wholes, and harmony, the balanced relationship between the various parts that make up the whole. These traits can be identified in healthy animals, thriving eco-systems and quality artifacts (products of intelligent life). I side step the is-ought problem by saying that people make choices unconstrained by any 'ought' as to whether they want to go down the path of life or down the path of nihilism. 'Should' is not an obligation but recognizing the moral standard and incorporating it into one's life.