|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 06/13/2007 : 18:36:55 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
| My cat's bad breath can be judged unethical, but how meaningful is that judgment? |
To clarify...
Objects are not typically subject to ethical judgements. The subject is typically confined to humans.
ffs...
|
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 |
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 19:58:04 [Permalink]
|
judgments and mere decisions are not the same thing.
|
"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 - 06/13/2007 : 20:56:02 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | Objects are not typically subject to ethical judgements. The subject is typically confined to humans. |
Then let me change my example:
My preference for chocolate icecream over strawberry can be judged unethical, but how meaningful is that judgment? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 21:34:00 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
| My preference for chocolate icecream over strawberry can be judged unethical, but how meaningful is that judgment? |
You continue to illustrate the futility of having this conversation.
Ethics concerns making judgements of right vs wrong, not your personal preference (unless your talking about some preference that can be phrased in terms of right vs wrong).
judgments and mere decisions are not the same thing.
|
Can I buy you a dictionary?
They don't always mean the same thing, but they most certainly can. If you decide a thing is wrong/right, positive/negative, or whatever... you are making a judgement.
You can't possibly be this illiterate. I think you are just Jeroming me.
|
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 - 06/14/2007 : 03:29:25 [Permalink]
|
Since we're not discussing definitions, it may or may not be unethical to feel good about someone dying, but it's makes no sense to label that emotion unethical or 'wrong.'
Emotions can lead you to your beliefs and thoughts, and that seems to me that that's always a constructive thing. Now, the beliefs and thoughts may be incorrect, and may lead to destructive behavior, but the emotions are not doing something wrong. In fact, it may be that the only way to correct your incorrect beliefs is to follow your emotions, and appreciate them.
It may make very good sense to be relieved that someone is dead. It may make good sense to be glad someone is dead in the same way people are glad a hurricane is over.
The terms 'right' and 'wrong' do not make any sense when talking about emotions, unless you mean them to say that the thoughts and beliefs that generate those emotions are incorrect. |
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
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 03:49:55 [Permalink]
|
| You continue to illustrate the futility of having this conversation. |
Then why are you still discussing it!? You keep repeating your same point – which I disagree with – and then comment that this conversation bores you, and yet you keep engaging with it. Go to another thread. Are you incapable of accepting that someone else genuinely disagrees with you?
| Ethics concerns making judgements of right vs wrong, not your personal preference (unless your talking about some preference that can be phrased in terms of right vs wrong). |
No, ethics concerns making judgments of right vs wrong about choices and actions that have been made. The reason we don't ethically judge personal preferences is because they, like feelings, are only marginally up to human control.
| They don't always mean the same thing, but they most certainly can. If you decide a thing is wrong/right, positive/negative, or whatever... you are making a judgement. |
You are just throwing “netural” in the mix so you can claim victory in this debate. But the reason we don't make ethical judgments about my cat's bad breath or peoples' personal preferences is because those things are ethically neutral, and those things are ethically neutral because they are not up to someone's choice (cat's breath), or only marginally up to someone's choice (preferences).
This all started because you judged the desire to hurt someone and being upset over spilled milk unethical. I (and I think boron too) am saying that it is inappropriate to apply ethics to feelings because feelings – like preferences - can only be marginally controlled. In short, you application of ethical judgments to feelings is just as silly as my applying it to ice cream preference.
| You can't possibly be this illiterate. I think you are just Jeroming me. |
You, accusing someone on this forum of being dishonest just because they disagree with you – what a surprise.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 05:54:03 [Permalink]
|
| This all started because you judged the desire to hurt someone and being upset over spilled milk unethical. |
Now you're revising history? Thats a fucking shock.....not.
This thread started because B10 doesn't think you can apply ethical judgements to emotions. You can apply ethical judgements to emotions though, a point you have already fully agreed with me on. So why are you continuing to blather on here? Just because you don't want to admit defeat.
| You are just throwing “netural” in the mix so you can claim victory in this debate. But the reason we don't make ethical judgments about my cat's bad breath or peoples' personal preferences is because those things are ethically neutral, and those things are ethically neutral because they are not up to someone's choice (cat's breath), or only marginally up to someone's choice (preferences). |
Honestly, you can't be that stupid. It just isn't possible. The only plausible explanation is that you are trolling me, attempting to get me to tell you to go fuck yourself again. You just like it, don't you? You have this desire to be told that your a complete fucking retard, am imbecile with a masochistic streak. You WANT to be abused, told to go fuck off...
Well, I'm not going to satisfy your perverted little fetish.
I (and I think boron too) am saying that it is inappropriate to apply ethics to feelings because feelings – like preferences - can only be marginally controlled. In short, you application of ethical judgments to feelings is just as silly as my applying it to ice cream preference.
|
Now you are contradicting yourself! You already fully admitted that you apply ethical judgements to emotion! Here, I'll re-quote yourself for you:
In short: Judging negative emotions as unethical only creates more negative emotions. Better to accept our emotions, without judgment, and work on controlling our actions.
|
No emotion can be negative unless you apply an ethical judgement to it. Unless, of course, you are claiming some universal rule by which all emotions can be objectively rated....
| You keep repeating your same point – which I disagree with |
Obviously you don't disagree with me.
| Then why are you still discussing it!? |
Good question.
|
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 - 06/14/2007 : 06:13:17 [Permalink]
|
Dude seriously, could you be so kind to tone down the insults and abuse? Its in every other post.
If I wanted this I would have gone into room 12 b. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 08:53:55 [Permalink]
|
Dude, please stop the excessive insults. A little sarcasm or the occasional insult in one thing, but you take it to another level. They do hurt my feelings, and it makes other people on this forum uncomfortable. I find this topic interesting and would like to continue with it if you are interested in communicating, not second-guessing my forthrightness.
| This thread started because B10 doesn't think you can apply ethical judgements to emotions. |
I disagree. I think B10 was saying that it is inappropriate and not very meaningful to apply ethical judgments. But he'll have to speak up to clarify to be sure. Boron, where are you??? I think that considering something ethically neutral is equal to not making an ethical judgment. You think that neutrality is a judgment. That is where we disagree.
| You can apply ethical judgements to emotions though, a point you have already fully agreed with me on. |
You can only in the same way that you can apply ethical judgements to anything, such as the cat's breath and preference for icecream, but such judgments are not meaningful or productive.
| No emotion can be negative unless you apply an ethical judgement to it. |
Since when does “negative” require moral or ethical judgement? Are negative numbers unethical? Does a stop sign carry an unethical message? By negative emotions I mean emotions we don't want to feel.
|
"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 06/14/2007 08:55:20 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 11:02:13 [Permalink]
|
So I think I see Dude's point. He's arguing that "ethics" is a judgment of right vs. wrong. What "right" or "wrong" are is irrelevant. A person from Society A may think that eating apples is wrong, while a person from Society B may find apples to be a great thing to eat. So the person from Society A would see the person from Society B eating an apple and think that she or he is wrong-- and will have made an ethical judgment.
I think.
Moreover, the person from Society B will have no judgment about the Society A person's eating or not eating an apple, because while she or he thinks that apples are a great thing to eat, not eating them isn't considered wrong.
Right? |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 11:05:05 [Permalink]
|
OK, on page 1 of this thread, I made this statement: because I'm making an argument that it is perfectly ethical to have those same feelings.
|
I no longer agree with the way I have worded this. Further discussion and thought on this topic has helped me see that I meant that the mentioned feelings are ethically neutral - they are neither right or wrong in terms of morality or ethics.
Incidentally, this is why I like this topic - because it is actally getting me to more closely examine this issue. I wish more people were in on this. |
"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 06/14/2007 11:09:21 |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 11:20:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dude, please stop the excessive insults. A little sarcasm or the occasional insult in one thing, but you take it to another level. They do hurt my feelings, and it makes other people on this forum uncomfortable. I find this topic interesting and would like to continue with it if you are interested in communicating, not second-guessing my forthrightness. | This thread started because B10 doesn't think you can apply ethical judgements to emotions. |
I disagree. I think B10 was saying that it is inappropriate and not very meaningful to apply ethical judgments. But he'll have to speak up to clarify to be sure. Boron, where are you??? |
I'm right here! 
Anyway, I don't see a significant difference between Dude's and marfknox's assessments of my position. Feelings are feelings, and can only be controlled to a limited extent. Since ethics is primarily about choices, it would follow that we can apply ethics to feelings only as far as we can choose our feelings.
To go back to the root of this particular part of the conversation, I started this thread because Dude made several assertions that I disagreed with, and knew they could not be resolved within the context of the Defending Phelps topic. The main point of disagreement was the ethics of feelings. Also, the subject seemed interesting enough that I believed a stimulating discussion could be held. I think that considering something ethically neutral is equal to not making an ethical judgment. You think that neutrality is a judgment. That is where we disagree. | You can apply ethical judgements to emotions though, a point you have already fully agreed with me on. |
You can only in the same way that you can apply ethical judgements to anything, such as the cat's breath and preference for icecream, but such judgments are not meaningful or productive. |
To add to this, I would say that the phrase "unethical feeling" has just as much meaning as the phrase "salty circle." I am sure there are ways to force them to make sense, but those phrases have no inherent meaning. | No emotion can be negative unless you apply an ethical judgement to it. |
Since when does “negative” require moral or ethical judgement? Are negative numbers unethical? Does a stop sign carry an unethical message? By negative emotions I mean emotions we don't want to feel. |
That is an interesting explanation, marfknox. Many people would classify anger as a "negative" emotion; would you then say it is not negative if I want to feel angry? |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 12:41:08 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
| Since when does “negative” require moral or ethical judgement? Are negative numbers unethical? Does a stop sign carry an unethical message? By negative emotions I mean emotions we don't want to feel. |
You are expert at this. You do it in EVERY SINGLE DEBATE YOU HAVE WITH ME IN THESE FORUMS. Shifting context, AGAIN.
You are so ridiculous.
Are you seriously trying to say that when you describe an emotion as negative, what you are really doing is assigning it a numerical value less than zero? WTF?
I'm going to have to ask Dave_W to get a new sound effect for the chat room.... Red Leader from Star Wars, "Stay on target!", but instead it will say, "Stay on context!"
Cune said:
So I think I see Dude's point. He's arguing that "ethics" is a judgment of right vs. wrong. What "right" or "wrong" are is irrelevant. A person from Society A may think that eating apples is wrong, while a person from Society B may find apples to be a great thing to eat. So the person from Society A would see the person from Society B eating an apple and think that she or he is wrong-- and will have made an ethical judgment.
I think.
Moreover, the person from Society B will have no judgment about the Society A person's eating or not eating an apple, because while she or he thinks that apples are a great thing to eat, not eating them isn't considered wrong.
Right? |
In a nut shell.
Right/wrong, good/bad, positive/negative, desired/undesired... are all themes on the same thing. Ethics is nothing more than the practice of taking your personal values set and making those judgements. Primarily this concerns human actions, but it definitely can be concerned with human emotions and feelings. Even if your personal value set places a specific thing being judged in the neutral position, it is STILL a value judgement.
The problem with these conversations, in my experience, is that people mostly can't leave the definition of ethics there. They have to apply their own personal ethics to the definition (as Marf has done throughout this entire thread). This, obviously, renders the definition subjective and therefore meaningless in the objective context of factually defining what ethics is.
B10 said:
| To add to this, I would say that the phrase "unethical feeling" has just as much meaning as the phrase "salty circle." I am sure there are ways to force them to make sense, but those phrases have no inherent meaning. |
You are still missing the point. You would judge feelings to be ethically neutral, neither good nor bad, for the most part. Other people would not agree with you. Many people, including lawmakers, police, doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, etc.. think tht people who express a feeling to do harm to themselves or others are wrong. In many states you can be, and are, confined against your will for just saying you have these feelings.
Even if you say emotions are neutral, per your personal values set, you are still making a values judgement. So emotions are subject to ethical considerations.
Starman said:
| Dude seriously, could you be so kind to tone down the insults and abuse? |
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 - 06/14/2007 : 15:26:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
.
.
.
Right/wrong, good/bad, positive/negative, desired/undesired... are all themes on the same thing. Ethics is nothing more than the practice of taking your personal values set and making those judgements. Primarily this concerns human actions, but it definitely can be concerned with human emotions and feelings. Even if your personal value set places a specific thing being judged in the neutral position, it is STILL a value judgement. |
If we tell you that a pH scale cannot be applied to the letter Q, we do not default to 7.0; we are telling you that it cannot be applied.
Perhaps "ethically neutral" is a misleading phrase, since it can (apparently) be misconstrued as placing a value judgement. Would you prefer if we said "ethically inapplicable" instead? | The problem with these conversations, in my experience, is that people mostly can't leave the definition of ethics there. They have to apply their own personal ethics to the definition (as Marf has done throughout this entire thread). This, obviously, renders the definition subjective and therefore meaningless in the objective context of factually defining what ethics is. |
Yes, the conversation might go a bit more smoothly if we could agree on a definition; unfortunately, you clearly stated you were not interested in such a discussion. How do you recommend we proceed? I would like to continue this conversation with anybody else who is interested. B10 said:
| To add to this, I would say that the phrase "unethical feeling" has just as much meaning as the phrase "salty circle." I am sure there are ways to force them to make sense, but those phrases have no inherent meaning. |
You are still missing the point. You would judge feelings to be ethically neutral, neither good nor bad, for the most part. Other people would not agree with you. Many people, including lawmakers, police, doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, etc.. think tht people who express a feeling to do harm to themselves or others are wrong. In many states you can be, and are, confined against your will for just saying you have these feelings. |
Restating your claim will not make me believe it's true any more. I will again request,B10:
Please show me at least one instance in which we locked somebody up for feeling like hurting people. |
Originally posted by Dude
Even if you say emotions are neutral, per your personal values set, you are still making a values judgement. So emotions are subject to ethical considerations. |
It doesn't matter if you use bold, underlines, or italics: it doesn't make it any more true.
I disagree with your assertion. You disagree with mine. I have tried to explain my position to you. You have tried to explain your position to me. Perhaps we should agree to disagree, since we each clearly feel the other is tragically mistaken. Starman said:Dude seriously, could you be so kind to tone down the insults and abuse? Its in every other post.
If I wanted this I would have gone into room 12 b. |
Sorry.
I can't help myself when provoked. Its a character flaw, I know.
Calling someone a deliberate liar, as marf has done to me in this thread, is a deadly insult. Its far worse than a truckload of fuck-yous, as far as I'm concerned. |
I only see one instance of anybody calling you a liar, and that was here:Dude:
Just read marfknox's post, after she calls me a lair, for a fine example. |
marfknox:
No I didn't, but now I will. Liar. |
It appears to me she was pissed at being falsely accused of namecalling. Please show me where she called you a liar prior to this. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 17:34:22 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | Are you seriously trying to say that when you describe an emotion as negative, what you are really doing is assigning it a numerical value less than zero? WTF? |
OK, so you misunderstood what I wrote. So did boron, so that is probably my fault for not being clear. Thank you for asking me to clarify.
However, if you didn't understand what I meant because I communicated it poorly, why would you accuse me of shifting context? You cannot both misunderstand what I'm saying AND claim to understand it enough to accuse me of shifting context.
Back to the topic, reading your latest response, I'm starting to wonder if another place we disagree really is on the definition of ethics. In particular, when you wrote this: | Right/wrong, good/bad, positive/negative, desired/undesired... are all themes on the same thing. Ethics is nothing more than the practice of taking your personal values set and making those judgements. |
I might have to retract my agreement with you about that supposedly objective definition that ethics is making distinctions between right and wrong. In seems that in that definition, you meant “right” and “wrong” in the broader senses, which would include positive/negative and desired/undesired. But I only took it in the sense of good/bad. While the system of ethics is subjective, when someone judges a choice unethical, they mean that the choice should not have occurred. That is not the same as saying unethical choices are undesired. My husband wants me to enjoy horror flicks, but he doesn't judge it as unethical that I do not like them.
In short, your supposedly objective definition of ethics was inadequate, and as I pointed out from the start, our different interpretations of the meaning of “right” and “wrong” also posed a problem with agreeing on a definition of ethics. It seems this conversation cannot go forward constructively if we do not discuss the definition of ethics since we are apparently using slightly different definitions.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Can Feelings be Unethical?
