|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 06/20/2007 : 13:29:24 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| because you're conflating marf calling you a liar with marf disagreeing with you about the definition of ethics. |
Now who's making assumptions about whats going on in someone's head?
|
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 |
|
 |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2007 : 13:32:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
.
.
.
As for B10... you may have a point. I'm so irritated by marf in this thread that I have been more harsh towards him than I should have been.
Please accept my apology, Tim.
.
.
. |
Done.
It occurs to me that I may be mistaken (after reading Trish's thread Ethics, Metaethics, Normative, and Applied Ethics). I will need to do some more thought and research on this subject, but in the meantime I will clarify what my position has been in this thread:
- Ethics is a system of judging choices or actions
- Feelings are not chosen
- Any expression of feeling (words or actions) are chosen
- Thus, though any expressions of feelings are subject to ethical evaluation, the feelings themselves are not
I have, since my first post, modified this conclusion slightly to say that feelings are subject to ethical consideration only to the extent that they are chosen.
Edited to remove a word that is both redundant and repetitive -- B10 |
| Edited by - Boron10 on 06/20/2007 13:34:58 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2007 : 14:13:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
It occurs to me that I may be mistaken (after reading Trish's thread Ethics, Metaethics, Normative, and Applied Ethics). I will need to do some more thought and research on this subject, but in the meantime I will clarify what my position has been in this thread:
- Ethics is a system of judging choices or actions
- Feelings are not chosen
- Any expression of feeling (words or actions) are chosen
- Thus, though any expressions of feelings are subject to ethical evaluation, the feelings themselves are not
I have, since my first post, modified this conclusion slightly to say that feelings are subject to ethical consideration only to the extent that they are chosen.
|
Why narrowly define "ethics" as a system for judging choices? I made a point earlier in this thread that Jesus made no distinction between committing a sin overtly and in one's head. Seems to me that choice didn't have anything to do with his system of ethics.
As Dave said, it's probably a bad system, and perhaps most modern ethicists have since gone on to exclude involuntary feelings, but I don't see how you can argue that such systems do not exist or hold meaning for anyone else.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/20/2007 14:14:23 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2007 : 15:10:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Dave_W said:| because you're conflating marf calling you a liar with marf disagreeing with you about the definition of ethics. |
Now who's making assumptions about whats going on in someone's head? |
It's been quite clear that marf's "bitchslapping" of you has little to do with your disagreement over the definition of a word, Dude, but that "bitchslapping" is the only thing you brought up in response to my suggestion that you should have cut her some slack about the disagreement. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2007 : 15:34:42 [Permalink]
|
Are you saying, Boron, that if I trip on a rug at a party and spill my beer all over the hostess that she shouldn't expect me to apologize because I did not choose to trip and spill? Of course you're not saying that, because you said, "choices or actions," so any action, whether willful or not, is ethically judgable, and I would have to apologize.
Too bad, too, for those with Tourette's Syndrome.
You're also saying that whatever vile thoughts pop into my head unbidden are not appropriate for judgement, but if I lock myself in a sound-proof room and give voice to those thoughts, then judgements are appropriate.
The above examples, I think, illustrate well the problem of trying to tightly confine ethics to actions, choices, or whatever other qualifer you might think of. I even have a problem with the qualifier "human" because it would be ridiculous to call whatever system of values an extraterrestrial civilization might have not "ethics" simply because they're not human. That's even true of, say, the other apes right here on Earth. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2007 : 15:42:19 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| It's been quite clear that marf's "bitchslapping" of you has little to do with your disagreement over the definition of a word, Dude, but that "bitchslapping" is the only thing you brought up in response to my suggestion that you should have cut her some slack about the disagreement. |
You are mistaking overlap for conflation. I'm not giving her any slack on the topic because she is mistaken, and unwilling to consider the fact that she is mistaken. I'm not being nice to her because of her entry into this thread disparaging my motivations.
|
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 - 06/20/2007 : 15:56:19 [Permalink]
|
Okay, Dude, I can see that.
But I'll ask again: is not being nice doing you or anyone else any good? I mean, I certainly can't read your mind (at least, not correctly), so I can't measure the "net good" after subtracting the obvious concern and animosity it's generated here on these forums from whatever personal good you might be grossing off writing your posts. |
- 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 - 06/20/2007 : 16:05:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Why narrowly define "ethics" as a system for judging choices? I made a point earlier in this thread that Jesus made no distinction between committing a sin overtly and in one's head. Seems to me that choice didn't have anything to do with his system of ethics. |
Perhaps Jesus was wrong. | As Dave said, it's probably a bad system, and perhaps most modern ethicists have since gone on to exclude involuntary feelings, but I don't see how you can argue that such systems do not exist or hold meaning for anyone else. |
I am not attempting to claim that people don't try to apply ethics to feelings. I am trying to show that, though some people may try, they are not accomplishing the attempted task, since ethics is a system of judging choices and actions. Originally posted by Dave W.
Are you saying, Boron, that if I trip on a rug at a party and spill my beer all over the hostess that she shouldn't expect me to apologize because I did not choose to trip and spill? Of course you're not saying that, because you said, "choices or actions," so any action, whether willful or not, is ethically judgable, and I would have to apologize. |
Yes, but you chose to walk across a room with a trip hazard and a beer, potentially putting you into the situation you have described. The choices you made that put you into the situation are worth ethical consideration; an involuntary result is not. | Too bad, too, for those with Tourette's Syndrome. |
Yes, it is too bad. | You're also saying that whatever vile thoughts pop into my head unbidden are not appropriate for judgement, but if I lock myself in a sound-proof room and give voice to those thoughts, then judgements are appropriate. |
Almost. I am specifically referring to feelings, not thoughts. | The above examples, I think, illustrate well the problem of trying to tightly confine ethics to actions, choices, or whatever other qualifer you might think of. |
I agree. There is considerable discussion here attempting to find a useful definition: one that doesn't include everything. | I even have a problem with the qualifier "human" because it would be ridiculous to call whatever system of values an extraterrestrial civilization might have not "ethics" simply because they're not human. That's even true of, say, the other apes right here on Earth. |
First of all, did I restrict it to humans? I don't recall (and I lack to energy to search very far); however, that is an interesting point. Perhaps we should specify with the phrase "sentient beings" rather than "humans." |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2007 : 16:38:37 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W asked:
| But I'll ask again: is not being nice doing you or anyone else any good? |
Sure. I disagree with Val that the philosophy of Ghandi (complete non-violence) is effective in every situation. IMO the best way to respond to an attack is to punch back.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2007 : 17:19:58 [Permalink]
|
| To trip and fall is not unethical. To apologize is to take responsibility for one's actions and to say that no harm was intended, not to judge oneself as morally wrong. It makes no sense to call an accident unethical. If one does not attempt to make amends, then that might be reasonably judged ethical or 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
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2007 : 19:55:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
Yes, but you chose to walk across a room with a trip hazard and a beer, potentially putting you into the situation you have described. |
Did I know there was a trip hazard?| The choices you made that put you into the situation are worth ethical consideration; an involuntary result is not. |
So to properly analyze one's actions from an ethical perspective, one must re-assess every choice one has ever made? I mean, if the party were at Kil's house, then my decision, years ago, to follow a link to the Skeptic Friends Network becomes a part of the ethical algebra of an accident.| Too bad, too, for those with Tourette's Syndrome. |
Yes, it is too bad. |
Well, now I'm just confused. You seem to be willing to give feelings an ethical pass because they're not controllable choices, but you're not willing to do the same for the uncontrollable gesticulations of a disease victim, simply because they are actions?| You're also saying that whatever vile thoughts pop into my head unbidden are not appropriate for judgement, but if I lock myself in a sound-proof room and give voice to those thoughts, then judgements are appropriate. |
Almost. I am specifically referring to feelings, not thoughts. |
I fail to see the practical difference between a feeling and an unbidden thought from a choice-and-action perspective.| The above examples, I think, illustrate well the problem of trying to tightly confine ethics to actions, choices, or whatever other qualifer you might think of. |
I agree. There is considerable discussion here attempting to find a useful definition: one that doesn't include everything. |
No, it need only include all possible systems of values related to beings capable of determining right from wrong.| First of all, did I restrict it to humans? I don't recall (and I lack to energy to search very far)... |
No, the definitions marf cited earlier used the word 'human'. I was just using it as an example of a qualifier I don't think is apt. |
- 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 - 06/20/2007 : 20:41:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
So to properly analyze one's actions from an ethical perspective, one must re-assess every choice one has ever made? I mean, if the party were at Kil's house, then my decision, years ago, to follow a link to the Skeptic Friends Network becomes a part of the ethical algebra of an accident. |
Yes.| Well, now I'm just confused. You seem to be willing to give feelings an ethical pass because they're not controllable choices, but you're not willing to do the same for the uncontrollable gesticulations of a disease victim, simply because they are actions? |
Sorry, I was not looking at that in the same context you were. In most cases the result of a disease is not eligible to ethical consideration. It is unfortunate, however, that people will attempt ethical judgment on a Turret's case. | I fail to see the practical difference between a feeling and an unbidden thought from a choice-and-action perspective. |
I see your point. The ethics show up when you choose to entertain or banish that thought. | No, it need only include all possible systems of values related to beings capable of determining right from wrong. |
I fail to see the value in such a broad definition of the term. | No, the definitions marf cited earlier used the word 'human'. I was just using it as an example of a qualifier I don't think is apt. |
Fair enough.
Edited to add a single letter -- B10
Edited again to fix a formatting error -- B10
Edited again to fix the real formatting error -- Dave W. |
| Edited by - Boron10 on 06/21/2007 08:32:09 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 06:39:03 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: | Why narrowly define "ethics" as a system for judging choices? |
Why broadly define "ethics" as a system for judging anything?
| As Dave said, it's probably a bad system, and perhaps most modern ethicists have since gone on to exclude involuntary feelings, but I don't see how you can argue that such systems do not exist or hold meaning for anyone else. |
I keep thinking that they are meaningful in the same way that religious faith is meaningful for a lot of people - in a sort of non-rational way that can't be explained logically but is more a sort of psychological comfort. So I think I'm still sticking to my thought that while it may be meaningful, it's not very meaningful, and also not useful, which is why I narrowly define "ethics" as a judgment of choices rather than judgment of anything.
And generally in response to Dave's debate on the last two pages with boron:
I understand that people feel guilt over things they didn't control, and that they apologize for things which were truly pure accidents, but I question whether ethics meaningfully applies to all things regarded as good or bad, right or wrong. For instance, when someone apologizes, often that is used as a sort of comfort, not necessarily an admission of and repentance for unethical behavior.
Not all things regarded as "bad" are regarded as unethical. For example, most people will agree that when a baby dies of a horrible genetic disease, that is a bad thing. But fault or blame isn't typically attributed to anyone. Without a conscious being making a choice, I fail to see how ethical judgments are very meaningfully applicable. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 06:40:26 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | I believe that marf owes you an apology for her comment on your motivation |
My sarcasm and meanness toward Dude was intended to be a response in kind to a tone I felt he was setting with his sarcasm directed at boron. Since Dude has apologized to boron, I will do the same.
Dude, the above sarcastic question was not meant to be so personally offensive to you. I really really disagreed with what I thought you were saying about ethics (I have since come to think that your position isn't as extreme as I first thought, and that our disagreement is rather insignificant), and because I perceived your post as being very aggressive, I was trying to match it with equal aggressiveness. What I said was mean, it had the potential to take this conversation to bad place – which is exactly what happened - and for that I am sorry. I will try to restrain myself more in the future.
Dave, thank you for interjecting the way that you have. I had not reconsidered the appropriateness of my initial post until you criticized it. I don't think that what I said was “extraordinarily hostile”, but I do agree that it was unnecessarily mean, and therefore I am partially responsible for the bad turn of this thread. I fully acknowledge and accept that responsibility.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 09:39:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
Originally posted by Dave W.
So to properly analyze one's actions from an ethical perspective, one must re-assess every choice one has ever made? I mean, if the party were at Kil's house, then my decision, years ago, to follow a link to the Skeptic Friends Network becomes a part of the ethical algebra of an accident. |
Yes. |
And so continuing, my decision to check out this "new Internet thing" years before finding the SFN becomes part of the equation, too? And so would my interest in computers, which was spawned years before that?| Well, now I'm just confused. You seem to be willing to give feelings an ethical pass because they're not controllable choices, but you're not willing to do the same for the uncontrollable gesticulations of a disease victim, simply because they are actions? |
Sorry, I was not looking at that in the same context you were. In most cases the result of a disease is not eligible to ethical consideration. It is unfortunate, however, that people will attempt ethical judgment on a Turret's case. |
Well, what I was really looking for is an acknowledgement that from your point-of-view, just because something is an "action," it's not necessarily elligible for ethical consideration.
| I fail to see the practical difference between a feeling and an unbidden thought from a choice-and-action perspective. |
I see your point. The ethics show up when you choose to entertain or banish that thought. |
Could not ethics also be involved when one chooses to encourage a certain feeling?
| No, it need only include all possible systems of values related to beings capable of determining right from wrong. |
I fail to see the value in such a broad definition of the term. |
The number-one definition provided by marf (and so Dictionary.com) is nothing more than "a system of moral principles." Different cultures, and even different groups within a culture, will have developed different ethical systems due to differing priorities and differing customs (among other differences). To exclude some system because it includes things that you think it should not is (A) to call "a system of moral principles" not an ethic, and (B) to impose your own value system when deciding what's an ethic and what isn't.
No particular ethical system has to be rational. While the study of ethics should be rational and scientific to the extent possible, the ethics under study may in fact be silly or dangerous (see "Christianity").
My own ethical system says that phenomena which do not occur due to any conscious choice will not be elligible for ethical consideration. I've examined the arguments for and against such a position, and have decided that such a principle would be better for the world as a whole, and so have incorporated it into my own ethic. But that does not, and cannot, mean that such a principle belongs within the very definition of the word 'ethics'. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Can Feelings be Unethical?
