|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 06/22/2007 : 14:34:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Okay. Now, would you agree that it is unfair to judge people on things they can't control? In other words, do you abide by that moral principle? |
I would, but has only marginal bearing on my point. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 14:47:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
Originally posted by Dave W.
Okay. Now, would you agree that it is unfair to judge people on things they can't control? In other words, do you abide by that moral principle? |
I would, but has only marginal bearing on my point. |
It's leading up to my next question, which has a lot of bearing on my point:
Why do you think it is unfair to judge people on things they can't control? |
- 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 - 06/22/2007 : 16:03:30 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| Why do you think it is unfair to judge people on things they can't control? |
I asked this basic question earlier in this thread. The response was because tuesday isn't a color.
|
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 - 06/22/2007 : 17:52:57 [Permalink]
|
Why do you think it is unfair to judge people on things they can't control?
|
The only thing that would be unfair is if you did something about your judgment. It makes no sense to judge a judgment. It's not inherently unfair to judge someone, it is just not based on reason.
|
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
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2007 : 01:00:01 [Permalink]
|
Glad I was able to help clarify your point Dave.
| Why do you think it is unfair to judge people on things they can't control? |
It is a function of the particular biology of that individual. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2007 : 11:50:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
It's leading up to my next question, which has a lot of bearing on my point:
Why do you think it is unfair to judge people on things they can't control? |
That is tough to articulate, and I am not sure I can explain without tautology. Would it suffice to say it is inappropriate for the same reason that it is inappropriate to judge an inanimate object (like a fig tree)? Originally posted by Dude
I asked this basic question earlier in this thread. The response was because tuesday isn't a color. |
I do not recall you ever asking this particular question; however, I provided my ridiculous non-sequitur analogies each time you illustrated an apparent lack of understanding of my point.
After a cursory review of the thread I have not noticed this question asked by you, Dude. If you asked a legitimate question that I have not answered in good faith, please let me know and I will immediately attempt to rectify that. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2007 : 15:43:10 [Permalink]
|
B10 said:
| After a cursory review of the thread I have not noticed this question asked by you, Dude. If you asked a legitimate question that I have not answered in good faith, please let me know and I will immediately attempt to rectify that. |
I didn't ask it exactly the same way Dave_W did, but here you go:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8122&whichpage=8#122456
I said:
But that apparently isn't enough to satisfy you that you are mistaken.
Follow the logic:
You "can't" make ethical judgements about X.
Wait a minute... where are your premises for that conclusion? Apparently absent. Why "can't" you make ethical judgements about X?
Hrrmmm.... well, in order for your conclusion to be true, you'd have to have some premises that allow you to make that deduction. The only set of premises that allows your conclusion to be universally true are ones that describe an objective measure of right/wrong.
If you can think of another set of premises that allow your conclusion to be universally true, please go ahead and provide them to us.
|
Your reply failed to answer the request, and continued to accuse me of logical fallacy.
The problem here is that we are talking about two different things, and you refuse to recognize it. You continue to want to talk about practical or applied ethics, and the single point I am trying to make is that there is no possible universal standard for applied ethics, and therefore there is no possible way that you can universally exclude anything from ethical considerations, even if you think it is moronic and stupid to apply an ethical judgement to that thing.
So please, provide us with an argument (your simple claim that "it doesn't make sense" is insufficient) that lets you universally conclude some thing can't be ethically judged, and also preserves the subjective nature of morality.
Keep in mind, I don't disagree with you that it is incredibly stupid to consider emotion as inherently wrong, from an applied ethics point of view. It is a waste of time and energy, beyond checking urges to follow through on some of our more base emotions, to consider emotions as inherently right or wrong (or positive/negative even) and pass judgement on them. It makes more sense, to me, to teach people to cope with emotions and not make decisions for actions based on them.
But you can't deny the simple empirical observation that millions of people do consider some emotions as inherently right or wrong. Hate, lust, envy, greed, hubris, etc. Or love, compassion, and other positively connotated emotions.
Lets look at another thing I would say is completely unworthy of ethical consideration from an applied ethics pov, but billions (yes, billions) of people do consider to be a matter of right and wrong so serious that they base their entire lives around the premise.
| you shall have no other gods before me |
(edited to add, because of clicking "post" instead of "preview")
I absolutely agree that people shouldn't consider it wrong to to not follow that commandment, but it is absurd to say they can't.
|
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 |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 06/25/2007 15:48:38 |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2007 : 15:02:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
I didn't ask it exactly the same way Dave_W did, but here you go:
Link reformatted by B10
I said:But that apparently isn't enough to satisfy you that you are mistaken.
Follow the logic:
You "can't" make ethical judgements about X.
Wait a minute... where are your premises for that conclusion? Apparently absent. Why "can't" you make ethical judgements about X?
Hrrmmm.... well, in order for your conclusion to be true, you'd have to have some premises that allow you to make that deduction. The only set of premises that allows your conclusion to be universally true are ones that describe an objective measure of right/wrong.
If you can think of another set of premises that allow your conclusion to be universally true, please go ahead and provide them to us. |
Your reply failed to answer the request, and continued to accuse me of logical fallacy. |
I can see where I was not clear here. The definition of ethics, posted by marfknox here, adequately describes the working definition I have been using. Specifically, definition #4, which states that ethics is "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." I have subsequently modified my working definition to include sentient creatures, rather than humans, at the prompting of Dave W. Thus, it would follow that if something is not a choice, it is not an ethical consideration.
It seems we have a definition problem here. I disagree with the definition you presented: it is inadequate. You are uninterested in arguing definitions.
Since feelings are (to a large extent) involuntary, they have nothing to do with ethics. I attempted to use these words in the first place, and when there was still a misunderstanding of my point, I tried to illustrate that feelings have as much to do with ethics as yellow has to do with smell. I understand it is a ridiculous analogy, but I had hoped it would get my point across. I apologize if that seemed condescending. The problem here is that we are talking about two different things, and you refuse to recognize it. You continue to want to talk about practical or applied ethics, and the single point I am trying to make is that there is no possible universal standard for applied ethics, and therefore there is no possible way that you can universally exclude anything from ethical considerations, even if you think it is moronic and stupid to apply an ethical judgement to that thing.
So please, provide us with an argument (your simple claim that "it doesn't make sense" is insufficient) that lets you universally conclude some thing can't be ethically judged, and also preserves the subjective nature of morality. |
I hope my above explanation is sufficient.| Keep in mind, I don't disagree with you that it is incredibly stupid to consider emotion as inherently wrong, from an applied ethics point of view. It is a waste of time and energy, beyond checking urges to follow through on some of our more base emotions, to consider emotions as inherently right or wrong (or positive/negative even) and pass judgement on them. It makes more sense, to me, to teach people to cope with emotions and not make decisions for actions based on them. |
I agree wholeheartedly. | But you can't deny the simple empirical observation that millions of people do consider some emotions as inherently right or wrong. Hate, lust, envy, greed, hubris, etc. Or love, compassion, and other positively connotated emotions. |
I agree that people attempt to apply ethics to things which are not ethically applicable. Those people are mistaken. This is the other reason I have used my ridiculous analogies: I was attempting to explain that, even though somebody can say something, they are not necessarily doing it. In other words the phrase, "it is ethically wrong to get angry" is as meaningful as the phrase, "blueberries smell like yellow." Lets look at another thing I would say is completely unworthy of ethical consideration from an applied ethics pov, but billions (yes, billions) of people do consider to be a matter of right and wrong so serious that they base their entire lives around the premise.
| you shall have no other gods before me |
(edited to add, because of clicking "post" instead of "preview")
I absolutely agree that people shouldn't consider it wrong to to not follow that commandment, but it is absurd to say they can't. |
This commandment, however, is ethically applicable. People can choose which (if any) gods they grant primacy. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2007 : 16:41:02 [Permalink]
|
Your continued refusal to provide any actual argument for why something can be universally excluded from ethical consideration is noted.
Your insistence that it doesn't make sense is, again, insufficient. You need to explain why.
Why can no person, in any circumstance, judge some things in terms of ethics? You need to describe why this is the case all the time.
Again, this disagreement is over your refusal to distinguish between the concepts of ethics and your personal version of applied ethics.
No matter how many times you say that people can't judge emotions, or that they aren't really, you remain wrong. It is actually shocking to see a person in such denial of empirical reality. Walk down to your local megachurch and ask the priest/preacher/whatever is he thinks its wrong, ethically, to feel greed, lust, hate, envy, or excessive pride. A lot of people think those emotions are inherently wrong. This conversation can't procede until you acknowledge the simple reality that you can ethically judge emotions, regardless of your opinion on should they be so judged.
Set aside applied ethics for a bit. Just try to stretch your brain around some basic concepts.
|
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 - 06/26/2007 : 20:18:02 [Permalink]
|
Dude, you have banished me from this thread through sheer obstinance.
I am not sure if I am just unable to explain myself adequately, or perhaps you're not actually reading my posts.
Perhaps when I cool off I will find a reason to continue this conversation.
It is disappointing, though, because there was some great dialog for a while. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2007 : 22:03:20 [Permalink]
|
I read your posts carefully.
You continue to apply your own set of values to the topic and want only to talk about applied ethics.
This is what I am talking about:
| Since feelings are (to a large extent) involuntary, they have nothing to do with ethics. |
In order to reach that conclusion, you have to apply your personal values. It is self evidently untrue in the wider context (which is the point you refuse to concede).
I agree with you, from an applied ethics pov, that it is a stupid waste of time to judge an emotion as inherently un/ethical. But you surely must see, even from a cursory examination of the world, that millions of people DO. However, from the very start, this has not been a conversation about should. The thread is titled: "Can Feelings be Unethical?"
To deny that millions of people do judge emotions to be inherently good or bad is like insisting that the universe is only 6000 years old.
|
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 - 06/27/2007 : 14:58:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
Originally posted by Dave W.
It's leading up to my next question, which has a lot of bearing on my point:
Why do you think it is unfair to judge people on things they can't control? |
That is tough to articulate, and I am not sure I can explain without tautology. |
Well, that's my point. If it were actually a matter of the definition of "ethics," then you wouldn't have a hard time articulating it, nor would it be at all tautological. "It's unfair because the defintion says it's not correct to do so."
For me, it's unfair to judge people on things they can't control because I know how it feels to be on the receiving end of it and don't want people doing it to me. I strive to adhere to the ethic of reciprocity.
That, of course, has nothing to do with the definition of "ethics."
And definition #4, "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," says absolutely nothing about whether actions are involuntary or not. I think you're reading something about that into the word "motives," but the definition clearly says that motives aren't the only thing that ethics examines, anyway. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2007 : 22:58:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
No matter how many times you say that people can't judge emotions, or that they aren't really, you remain wrong. It is actually shocking to see a person in such denial of empirical reality. Walk down to your local megachurch and ask the priest/preacher/whatever is he thinks its wrong, ethically, to feel greed, lust, hate, envy, or excessive pride. A lot of people think those emotions are inherently wrong. This conversation can't procede until you acknowledge the simple reality that you can ethically judge emotions, regardless of your opinion on should they be so judged.
Set aside applied ethics for a bit. Just try to stretch your brain around some basic concepts.
|
Separating the names of various emotions into "good" and "bad" columns is one thing. Yes, we CAN make judgments about them in the abstract, or in accrued examples of actions expressing those emotions, and so we do. IMO that bears little resemblance to making judgments about emotions (and thoughts) as actually experienced by people, especially by other people. The latter seems to be the realm in which the question opening this discussion was posed ("Can Feelings be Unethical?").
When an emotion (or thought) is purely internal, and hence is not expressed by any action, not even by a facial expression - who can possibly know about it other than the person in whose brain it is occurring?
Assuming the absence of any omniscient or psychic beings, can't the person himself or herself be the ONLY one who can possibly determine the existence of an unexpressed emotion or thought, and pass judgment on its acceptability, in general and in that circumstance?
Isn't our judgment of the acceptability of our own thoughts and emotions, in the context of culture & the specific circumstance & etc etc, a big part of the consideration we go through to determine whether or not to display & act upon our thoughts and feelings?
So, in the absence of any outward expression of an emotion or thought, how can one person have enough information to make any judgment about another person's emotions or thoughts, except in the abstract? (As in: "I don't know what you're feeling, but if it's love that's good. Unless it's lust, that's bad. Or maybe you're angry, that's bad. Unless it's righteous indignation on behalf of someone who has been treated unfairly, that's good. Or maybe you're not feeling anything at all. I'm not sure if that's good or bad, we didn't cover that in Ethics class.")
Theists base their judgment that certain emotions and thoughts are wrong on the idea that there is a supreme-moral-judge-cum-thought-policeman who:
(a) has decided and handed down the judgment that certain emotions and thoughts are bad;
(b) always knows what you're thinking and feeling; and
(c) will (or, can) punish a person for having those bad, bad thoughts and feelings.
It's proven to be a handy way to make people feel bad about themselves for having normal thoughts and emotions, and to feel qualified to make blanket judgments about other people's unexpressed thoughts & emotions. But IMO that still doesn't mean that an actual feeling that's created in & experienced by someone's brain, & otherwise unexpressed, can be judged by anyone other than that person. |
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2007 : 23:07:11 [Permalink]
|
Zebra said:
| But IMO that still doesn't mean that an actual feeling that's created in & experienced by someone's brain, & otherwise unexpressed, can be judged by anyone other than that person. |
I don't disagree.
But that is applied ethics, and you have to use your own values set in order to reach that conclusion.
|
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 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Can Feelings be Unethical?
