|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 06/18/2007 : 22:47:02 [Permalink]
|
dv said:
| Your hyper-aggressiveness is getting pretty damn tedious. |
As are the condescending remarks, accusations of lying, accusations of deliberate intellectual dishonesty, and so on, from others here.
I see no reason to be polite in the face of such.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 06/18/2007 : 23:23:15 [Permalink]
|
Original hypocrisy by Dude
As are the condescending remarks, accusations of lying, accusations of deliberate intellectual dishonesty, and so on, from others here. |
Dammit!
You owe me a new irony meter, mr Pot!
 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 04:50:28 [Permalink]
|
| Maybe you really are just to stupid to comprehend this simple point. |
I comprehended your point several pages ago and acknowledged that you are correct if we are going with the broad definition of ethics. However, I disagreed that the broad definition your proposed was the most useful or meaningful one to use in the context of this discussion.
Dude, are you contending that there is only one objective definition of "ethics"? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 06/19/2007 04:51:04 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 04:53:42 [Permalink]
|
I looked up "ethics" in Dictionary.com and the first listing had four definitions (my emphasis in bold):
1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4. (usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 09:48:11 [Permalink]
|
I agree with the definitions presented by marfknox above; specifically, item (4) best expresses my working definition.
Originally posted by marfknox
Two pages ago Trish remarked: | I'm not sure that B10 intended to so narrowly define the topic |
If I'm reading boron's posts correctly he didn't mean to so narrowly define the topic at all. Since boron started this discussion and made his more pragmatic definition of ethics clear in the context of his initial post, I fail to see how it is enlightening to insist that we go with the broad definition. That just shuts down the conversation before it even begins. |
I exactly intended a definition that narrow. As Trish so effectively explained my position (in the same post): | Feelings are neither ethical nor unethical but rather their expression is subject to ethical evaluation, which is a different topic from the feeling itself being ethical. |
This sums up my point very well. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 10:00:24 [Permalink]
|
This sums up my point very well.
|
All well put. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 10:17:40 [Permalink]
|
I'm done here.
The abject stupidity or willful ignorance that allows you two to continue to ignore the topic of this thread is more than I want to deal with.
The topic, as posted by B10, is "Can feelings be unethical?"
The answer is simple: Yes.
Nothing can be universally excluded from ethical considerations without implying an objective standard of right and wrong.
Why you two insist on turning this into a debate about practical ethical applications, I do not know. Nor do I, now, give a rats ass why.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 10:18:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I'm really just trying to say that it is not practical to make ethical judgments of feelings which are out of our control. |
Yes, I understand that, and I agree with it.
My points center around the fact that people, in general, are very impractical.
People do pass ethical judgements on their own feelings, emotions (and thoughts) all the time. You've made it clear that you think it's inappropriate for them to do so (and Boron likens it to imagining a triangular circle), and that doing so may cause harm, but that's your own ethic speaking, and you (and Boron) should recognize it for what it is. You are applying an ethic of practicality in a world where people often aren't practicle.
Because "should a person apply ethical judgements to feelings" is most certainly an ethics question, and not one of definition. Under your ethical system and mine, the answer in "no," but that's only true for people who share the ethic of practicality. Not everyone does. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 10:28:37 [Permalink]
|
Because "should a person apply ethical judgements to feelings" is most certainly an ethics question, and not one of definition. Under your ethical system and mine, the answer in "no," but that's only true for people who share the ethic of practicality. Not everyone does.
|
That part wasn't clear to me, as early on, something was said about a cat's bad breath being unethical, and that was refuted as not being a reasonable thing to insert into the discussion. Yes, someone can stupidly think that a cat's bad breath is unethical, but by most definitions, and by reason, it isn't. The idea of an some kind of objective right or wrong does not apply, and it does not apply to feelings. Ethics is about behavior. A hurricane is neither right or wrong, it just is. If ethics can only be applied to humans, then insert some other stupid analogy, like saying that pimples are unethical. It may be subjectively true in some weird universe, but it makes no sense.
Can feelings ever be judged as unethical? Not in any way that makes sense. Emotions are the result of thoughts and perceptions. Those thoughts and perceptions may be correct or incorrect, but the emotions themselves are always correct, as they are the result of thoughts, beliefs and perceptions.
Edited to say that the question is, can emotions be judged unethical. Yes, they can be judged as unethical by the same thinking that would judge a tree as unethical. There is no basis for such a thing. What might or might not be ethical is what you do with those emotions. If you ignore them, or label them as unethical, then that would not be smart, and might lead to unethical behavior. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 06/19/2007 10:33:52 |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 06/19/2007 : 11:12:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
.
.
.
Edited to say that the question is, can emotions be judged unethical. Yes, they can be judged as unethical by the same thinking that would judge a tree as unethical. There is no basis for such a thing. What might or might not be ethical is what you do with those emotions. If you ignore them, or label them as unethical, then that would not be smart, and might lead to unethical behavior. |
I think, Gorgo, this may be the first time in which I completely agree with you! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 11:34:16 [Permalink]
|
this may be the first time in which I completely agree with you!
|
You're absolutely wrong on that! |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 11:43:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Can feelings ever be judged as unethical? Not in any way that makes sense. |
You can say that all you like, but it obviously makes some sort of sense to a majority of people, because they regularly come to ethical judgements like, "I shouldn't hate my mother," and agonize over feelings they cannot change. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 11:58:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
You can say that all you like, but it obviously makes some sort of sense to a majority of people, because they regularly come to ethical judgements like, "I shouldn't hate my mother," and agonize over feelings they cannot change. |
I understand that people come to these conclusions often. I am just stating that they are erroneously applying ethics. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 12:12:24 [Permalink]
|
"I shouldn't hate my mother," and agonize over feelings they cannot change.
|
Actually, they can if they want to, and people do it all the time. They are not able to if they think that their emotions are something that they "shouldn't feel." In fact, if they have beliefs and thoughts and perceptions that lead to those feelings, it's better if they do feel them, and recognize them, and follow them to the beliefs that create them.
Hatred is simply tensing certain muscles, changing one's breathing patterns and recycling the same thoughts over and over. Hatred is created by the belief that one cannot go about one's business peacefully, until these habits of thought and behavior are repeated. Other people or things have to change, in order to gain or keep one's self-worth.
There is no god that says one "shouldn't" feel something. If you hold certain beliefs, you will feel certain feelings. There is no way around it. Change the beliefs and the habits of tension and thoughts that surround them, and you change the feelings.
(edited to create greater confusion) |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 06/19/2007 12:19:36 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 12:21:11 [Permalink]
|
Gods make sense to a majority of people, but they're not based on anything having to do with reality.
Can believing in god(s) be said to be unethical? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
 |
|
Can Feelings be Unethical?
