RE: Ethics
March 2, 2022 at 11:31 am
(This post was last modified: March 2, 2022 at 11:44 am by The Grand Nudger.)
It's not hard at all to find that in ethics. Peoples idea of ethics as a subject is far removed from it's actual state. As far as knowledge, Bel touched on this earlier - a technical explanation is that the shared axiom between science, math -and contemporary ethics-, that knowledge is attainable, is so far down and underneath every other set of statements piled on top - hundreds of positions to arrive at any of the three subjects - that diminishing the axiom in ethics necessarily calls into question the entirety of the other two enterprises on equivalent grounds.
If there can be no facts, then there are no facts in math or science either. If there can be facts in math and science, there can be facts in ethics. Objections to the attainability of knowledge in ethics alone among the three is an exercise in baseless special pleading that fundamentally rejects an axiom shared by any knowledge claim. Even if we ignore the first part...since we've decided that when two people do not share axioms the issue of their objection is meaningless......we're left holding the bag yet again.
It is a common opinion that all of ethics is mere opinion - but it's a baseless and inexplicable opinion on it's own grounds, and it's not well evidenced in the practical application of ethics. Both science and math have been used to falsify that conjecture, ironically. The explanation for why people think that doesn't have anything to do with ethics, but the circumstances of history. Essentially, it's an accidental position that people are strongly committed to when they happen to hold it. Or, at least they report as much, even if an exploration of their own ethics would show that they do not genuinely hold such a position.
If there can be no facts, then there are no facts in math or science either. If there can be facts in math and science, there can be facts in ethics. Objections to the attainability of knowledge in ethics alone among the three is an exercise in baseless special pleading that fundamentally rejects an axiom shared by any knowledge claim. Even if we ignore the first part...since we've decided that when two people do not share axioms the issue of their objection is meaningless......we're left holding the bag yet again.
It is a common opinion that all of ethics is mere opinion - but it's a baseless and inexplicable opinion on it's own grounds, and it's not well evidenced in the practical application of ethics. Both science and math have been used to falsify that conjecture, ironically. The explanation for why people think that doesn't have anything to do with ethics, but the circumstances of history. Essentially, it's an accidental position that people are strongly committed to when they happen to hold it. Or, at least they report as much, even if an exploration of their own ethics would show that they do not genuinely hold such a position.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
