|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 17:37:29 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | Calling someone a deliberate liar, as marf has done to me in this thread, is a deadly insult. |
You mean like this: | You can't possibly be this illiterate. I think you are just Jeroming me. |
| The only plausible explanation is that you are trolling me, attempting to get me to tell you to go fuck yourself again. |
These are your quotes. You are the one accusing me of deliberate falsehoods.
boron wrote: | 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. |
Dead on. Thanks.
|
"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 - 06/14/2007 : 17:44:58 [Permalink]
|
Boron wrote: | 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. |
I not only agree with this, I am also envious of your succinctness.
| 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? |
I think “negative” was an inadequate choice of wording. I had hoped it would be understood how I meant it in context, but alas, it seems that is not the case. I described the emotions as “negative” because it was the most morally-neutral single word I could think of to describe emotions that people generally try to rid themselves of or which people are uncomfortable with in either themselves or other people. The clip I posted from Ze Frank really gets across the point I was trying to make about not judging certain emotions in ourselves, but rather, accepting them and riding them through. In that clip he says that it is easy to become more depressed about being depressed. Often we judge our emotions. We think we are being wimpy or weak or cruel, and all of those are moral or ethical judgments that I think are misplaced. Or as you put it – ethically inapplicable. At least not in a way that is meaningful or constructive.
| 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? |
I really liked this way of putting it. I think we're pretty much on the same page.
|
"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 17:45:17 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 06/14/2007 : 18:10:31 [Permalink]
|
B10 said:
| 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. |
I didn't invent the definition of ethics. The problem is that you, and you are not nearly alone, don't seem to understand the simple one sentence definition of the word. Like marf you want to continue to add your personal value judgements TO the definition of ethics.
THIS IS THE REASON WHY THIS CONVERSATION IS ALMOST NEVER PRODUCTIVE TO HAVE.
Ethics, as defined by Merriam-Webster's unabridged dictionary:
| Ethics- the discipline dealing with what is good and bad or right and wrong. |
Thats it. Nothing more.
You don't get to decide that your neutral judgement (you making a value judgement based on your personal set of values) means that ethics doesn't apply to something. Doing so removes objectivity from the definition, rendering it utterly useless.
If I decide that it is wrong for people to wear the color red, that is a conclusion reached via ethical reasoning. Regardless of what your values set says about wearing red (probably a neutral judgement). Admittedly I may have a difficult time defending that judgement to others as it seems absurdly trivial and irrelevant, but if I decided it was wrong to wear red it is an application of ethics. But what if I were a member of a religion who represented evil with the color red? Remember, ethical judgements are never objective. To me it would be very wrong to wear the color red, wouldn't it?
What about the christian obsession with sex? Lustful feeling are WRONG! Most of us here disagree with that specific ethics judgement, but there is no arguing that a christian reaching that conclusion is making an ethics judgement based on their personal values set.
I am not an ethics professor, so perhaps I lack the skill needed to communicate this concept to you.
It doesn't matter if you use bold, underlines, or italics: it doesn't make it any more true.
|
You saying it isn't true, doesn't make it untrue. No matter how many times you say it, you are still wrong. This isn't a conversation about what we each think is right/wrong/neutral, this is a conversation about the objective definition of ethics, and the inability of people to comprehend this simplistic definition without tainting its objectivity with personal values judgements.
Emotions are subject to ethical judgements. Just because you, personally, would not apply good/bad or right/wrong to any specific emotion doesn't mean that other people won't. How egotistical do you have to be to think that way?
| Please show me at least one instance in which we locked somebody up for feeling like hurting people. |
Google up your state's mental health laws. You can be involuntarily committed for stating that you feel like hurting yourself or others. Regardless of your actual actions, they can lock your ass up for a few days just for saying what |
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 |
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 18:53:46 [Permalink]
|
"I think you are just Jeroming me."
Yeaaaa, I have become a VERB.
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 21:34:25 [Permalink]
|
Dude, are you basically saying that to discuss ethics, meaningfully, we would require an objective set of right and wrong? Or are we at that point approaching dogmatic moral judgement?
I think we approach what is socially acceptable, but I'm not certain there would be an objective right and wrong. Is killing wrong? It's a gray scale judgement, not a black and white issue. That is where applying ethical standards to an issue breaks down. First a set a parameters must be agreed upon by all parties involved. Only then can a discussion on the ethics of an issue ensue.
I think that everyone is missing this point. The assumption has been made that everyone operates on the same set of values. I don't see this as the case.
Though I must point out, that Dude is correct in that those who are considered a danger to themselves or others can be confined indefinitely while undergoing observation to determine their mental status. Having a person declared incompetent to make decisions for themselves can also result in extended confinement, with no crime having been committed.
Now, are thoughts/emotions subject to ethical consideration? I think only to ourselves, based on our set of values. Is anger good/bad/indifferent? I don't know. If feeling anger adversely affects you and those around you, then exerting control (by whatever means you use) is perhaps the ethical action.
Emotions exist, I think it is what we do with those emotions that can be subjected to ethical judgement. I don't see emotions as being either ethical or unethical - just being. Any judgement of emotions is subjectively based on an individuals value set. Not all value sets are equal. |
...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
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 23:08:52 [Permalink]
|
Trish said:
Dude, are you basically saying that to discuss ethics, meaningfully, we would require an objective set of right and wrong? Or are we at that point approaching dogmatic moral judgement?
|
No.
What I am saying is that your personal values set is irrelevant to the definition of the word "ethics".
Ethics is defined very simply, and objectively. It only gets complicated and subjective when you start arguing about the right/wrong characterization of specific things.
| but I'm not certain there would be an objective right and wrong. |
There is never an objective right or wrong. Such a thing is an utterly absurd concept.
I think that everyone is missing this point. The assumption has been made that everyone operates on the same set of values. I don't see this as the case.
|
If you got that from what I am saying, then you have definitely missed my point.
Ethics is nothing more than the process of making right/wrong, good/bad, positive/negative judgement calls based on your personal set of values.
The problem here is that people insist on bringing their personal, and subjective, value sets into the definition. B10 and marf insist that some things are ethically neutral or that ethics don't apply. What they have done, and apparently don't realize, is include their personal values set in the very definition of ethics. To them emotions are not a thing to be judged as right or wrong, they assign a neutral value to them based on their personal values. If they left it at that, no big deal. But they keep saying that some things are so trivial that ethics judgments can't be made about them.
Which is patently untrue from an objective point of view. I'll use the example of lust again. My personal values set says this emotion is good, a typical christian would probably consider it bad. B10 and marf say emotions aren't subject to ethical consideration, but obviously they are. I mean, do I really need to construct a case and present evidence to this board that some christians consider lust to be a sin? Is it some deeply held secret that you can be held against your will if you express suicidal feelings or a desire to inflict harm on others? Is this info really, honestly, not in the public domain?
| Emotions exist, I think it is what we do with those emotions that can be subjected to ethical judgement. I don't see emotions as being either ethical or unethical - just being. Any judgement of emotions is subjectively based on an individuals value set. Not all value sets are equal. |
(emphasis/underline mine)
You sort of contradict yourself here.
In the italics you make one valid point. No object or thing or action, emotions included, is inherently right or wrong. Such things are subjective judgement calls. If you agree that all things are subjective then you must also agree that another person's values set will have them making different judgements than you with regard to objects, things, and actions. Don't the 10 commandments command people to not covet their neighbor? Aren't 5 of the 7 deadly sins emotions? Pride, envy, greed, wrath, and lust? Obviously emotions are subject to ethical evaluation! No two people are ever going to agree exactly on the specific degree or right/wrong.... but that isn't relevant.
The underlined part you have right. No two values sets are ever going to be the same. Everyone will differ from every other person in some small degree over at least some topics.
My point from the start has been to state nothing more than this simple sentence: Ethics is the discipline dealing with what is good and bad or right and wrong.(merriam-webster unabridged) As soon as you take the definition beyond that, like by stating that emotions are not subject to ethical consideration, you have applied your personal subjective values set to the objective definition.
What each individual actually considers to be good/bad or right/wrong or neutral is an entirely different (but related) topic.
|
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 06/14/2007 23:09:32 |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 23:19:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
I didn't invent the definition of ethics. |
I never accused you of inventing a definition. You just seem to be misinterpreting it.| The problem is that you, and you are not nearly alone, don't seem to understand the simple one sentence definition of the word. |
Interesting that we both think the same way about each other in this regard, eh? | Like marf you want to continue to add your personal value judgements TO the definition of ethics. |
This is a perfect example of your misinterpretation of the definition of the word. | THIS IS THE REASON WHY THIS CONVERSATION IS ALMOST NEVER PRODUCTIVE TO HAVE. |
Oddly enough, nearly everybody else here is having a productive conversation. Ethics, as defined by Merriam-Webster's unabridged dictionary: | Ethics- the discipline dealing with what is good and bad or right and wrong. |
Thats it. Nothing more. |
I can accept this definition for the sake of argument; however, if we were to hold an in-depth discussion on any subject we would rather refer to the experts in the field for definitions. Dictionaries only provide common-usage definitions. | You don't get to decide that your neutral judgement (you making a value judgement based on your personal set of values) means that ethics doesn't apply to something. |
Here you are again claiming that blue smells like Tuesday. You and I can talk past eachother like this until everybody gets tired of it (I know, it's probably too late for that). Once again, I will suggest an “agree to disagree” alternative. | Doing so removes objectivity from the definition, rendering it utterly useless. |
I disagree. You seem to be claiming that everything is subject to ethical judgment. By placing everything possible into Dude's set of ethical applicability, you have effectively rendered it useless. Why even bother defining such a word if it excludes nothing?| If I decide that it is wrong for people to wear the color red, that is a conclusion reached via ethical reasoning. Regardless of what your values set says about wearing red (probably a neutral judgement). Admitte |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 01:59:59 [Permalink]
|
Can feelings be unethical? Well, feelings can be subject to ethical judgements so clearly the answer is yes.
Should feelings be subject to ethical judgements? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on the situation and context. and here's the kicker, the exact same holds true for thoughts, speech and actions as well.
Marf:
Giving an example of a situation where ethical judgements do not apply to feelings in order to argue that ethical judgements do not apply to feelings in general is logically faulty. One could easily give examples of situations in which ethical judgements do not apply to actions either but of course that would not show that actions are exempt from moral judgements in the general case.
Dude:
Regarding the definition you provided. Not all judgements of good and bad or right and wrong have to do with ethics. Ethics is more narrowly constrained that the definition indicates.
If we assume more precise meanings for good and bad or right and wrong then the definition reduces to a tautology. eg. "Ethics is the discipline of making ethical distinctions." |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 03:25:16 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | Like marf you want to continue to add your personal value judgements TO the definition of ethics. |
Bullshit! Like me, he is acknowledging that the simple definition of ethics that you gave is inadequate because “good/bad” and “right/wrong” aren't defined. You have interpreted those words broadly in the context of this definition, and boron and I have interpreted them more narrowly (requiring choice for application and a concept of judgment (should or should not – which has a slightly different connotation from prefer or prefer not). So even if we do accept your one-liner definition of “ethics”, it isn't the same definition if we are each applying different concepts of right and wrong. That isn't the same as different value systems.
Sure, some religions have morally judged feelings. The Bible, for instance, condemns lusting after people that one isn't married to. What I am arguing is that to the extent that a feeling is not chosen, it is not meaningful or useful to morally or ethically judge that feeling. So if some hot mama in a tight tank top walks passed Johnny and he gets a sudden surge of lust, it is inappropriate (inappropriate as in about as meaningful or useful as saying my cat's bad breath is wrong) to apply ethical or moral judgments to that feeling because it was out of Johnny's control. I'm not imposing my value system on anything. I'm saying that making ethical judgments on things which nobody can control is silly.
| You don't get to decide that your neutral judgement (you making a value judgement based on your personal set of values) means that ethics doesn't apply to something. Doing so removes objectivity from the definition, rendering it utterly useless. |
This statement just shows that you haven't understood what both I and boron have been trying to communicate. If you are genuinely interested in communication – opposed to being just interested in winning this debate – this isn't the best way to go about it.
| If I decide that it is wrong for people to wear the color red, that is a conclusion reached via ethical reasoning. Regardless of what your values set says about wearing red (probably a neutral judgement). |
And I would agree that wearing red can be appropriately (meaningfully and usefully) judged as ethical or unethical. The reason it can is because wearing red is indeed a choice. Unlike Johnny's surge of lust, a person must decide to put on red, and then take the action of doing so. Any actions made deliberately by a conscious being can be ethically judged meaningfully.
| Its a simple statement, and she calls me a liar and invents a false reason for my lack of interest in a single sentence. |
Jesus Christ! I was using sarcasm to counter your condescension and pushiness. I did and still do think it was asinine for you to so aggressively state a simplistic-and-vauge-to-the-point-of-being-practically-meaningless definition of "ethics", insist it is objective, and then act like everyone else is an idiot if they don't agree. You can twist it into me calling you a liar, but |
"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 - 06/15/2007 : 03:34:53 [Permalink]
|
Matt wrote: | Giving an example of a situation where ethical judgements do not apply to feelings in order to argue that ethical judgements do not apply to feelings in general is logically faulty. One could easily give examples of situations in which ethical judgements do not apply to actions either but of course that would not show that actions are exempt from moral judgements in the general case. |
I agree, and that is why I backtracked a bit in response to boron's recent statements. Some feelings can be ethically judged, but only to the degree that they can be controlled, which I think is marginal. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 05:18:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
My point from the start has been to state nothing more than this simple sentence: Ethics is the discipline dealing with what is good and bad or right and wrong.(merriam-webster unabridged) |
I agree with this part, however:
Originally posted by Dude
As soon as you take the definition beyond that, like by stating that emotions are not subject to ethical consideration, you have applied your personal subjective values set to the objective definition. |
I'm not sure why attempting to define the set of things to which it can be applied breaks the definition itself.
It may be that stating that which things must be included/excluded from the group to which ethics can sensibly be applied requires a personal judgement itself, but surely this is somewhat necessary to make the definition useful. I can also see that this is potentially self-referential, but I'm not sure that the definition is useful in a vacuum.
To draw a mathematical analogy, is there any point in defining an operator (like subtraction) without defining the objects to which the operator can be applied?
Disclaimer: I don't think know I've ever thought about these issues as much as this discussion has caused me to, and I may well be wrong in some major way. Polemics aside, I'm really enjoying this discussion, even if I don't have a lot to contribute.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 06/15/2007 05:20:03 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 05:33:42 [Permalink]
|
John wrote: | I know I've ever thought about these issues as much as this discussion has caused me to, and I may well be wrong in some major way. |
I think that's the value of philosophical discussions. Often I find them annoying, but once in a while it is nice to go deeper into concepts that we often take for granted that we understand, and maybe find out that our understanding wasn't as deep and accurate as we thought. I've already changed and refined my tune a little in this conversation, and I love when that happens, 'cause I feel like I'm actually learning something!
| Polemics aside, I'm really enjoying this discussion, even if I don't have a lot to contribute. |
I think you contributed a lot already. Brief but clear and to the point. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 05:42:41 [Permalink]
|
Well Dude has really brought the arguement home from "F**K You!"
I now agree totally with Dude on this matter, ethics do not have a foundation of things which are good or bad, all ethics are determined by the individuals or groups.
Nothing is inherently right or wrong.
On the literal interpretation of the topic,
Feelings (no matter how trivial they seem)can be unethical if the individual considers them to be or even if the groups which influence the individual consider them to be, however no feelings are inherently unethical, as nothing is inherently unethical.
Edit: for clarity |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 06/15/2007 05:47:01 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 08:27:18 [Permalink]
|
John said:
I'm not sure why attempting to define the set of things to which it can be applied breaks the definition itself.
|
Because doing so implies there is some objective standard to which the rightness or wrongness of a thing can be measured.
If you say that you can't apply ethics to a thing, what you are actually doing is applying your own set of ethical values to that thing and determining that as far as you are concerned it is irrelevant or to trivial to be distinctly right or wrong.
When you expand the definition of ethics to include your personal judgements, you no longer have an objective definition.
And lets have a reality check... despite how much B10 and Marf protest, it does not change the fact that some people apply very distinct ethical considerations to things that they themselves have declared, by fiat, that ethics don't apply to.
It may be that stating that which things must be included/excluded from the group to which ethics can sensibly be applied requires a personal judgement itself, but surely this is somewhat necessary to make the definition useful. I can also see that this is potentially self-referential, but I'm not sure that the definition is useful in a vacuum.
To draw a mathematical analogy, is there any point in defining an operator (like subtraction) without defining the objects to which the operator can be applied?
|
Defining what ethics can be applied to is a personal judgement call. It will be different for every person who bothers to consider the issue. This is useful only to individuals to help them make clear personal distinctions between right and wrong. Because of the subjective nature of personal values and right/wrong, it is impossible to objectively define them.
Not so for mathematics. If you accept the conventions, 2 is always 2. It never changes from one person to the next.
marfknox said:
| Bullshit! Like me, he is acknowledging that the simple definition of ethics that you gave is inadequate because “good/bad” and “right/wrong” aren't defined. |
And here we get to the real underlying reason you are factually mistaken.
Beyond the basic concept of the words, there is no such thing as an objective definition for right or wrong.
When you decide, by fiat, that a thing is to trivial or ethics cannot be applied, you are actually asserting that there is an objective measure by which you can evaluate such things. This is obviously and self evidently untrue.
B10 said:
| Here you are again claiming that blue smells like Tuesday. You and I can talk past eachother like this until everybody gets tired of it (I know, it's probably too late for that). Once again, I will suggest an “agree to disagree” alternative. |
We disagree, that is obvious.
But this isn't one of those things you can "agree to disagree" about. Would you "agree to disagree" with me if I claimed the sky was purple?
You and marf are simply in error. As I said some time ago, this is the reason why I hate this particular conversation. The underlying principle is simple, basic even. Yet, in my experience, there are always people |
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 |
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 09:37:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I agree, and that is why I backtracked a bit in response to boron's recent statements. Some feelings can be ethically judged, but only to the degree that they can be controlled, which I think is marginal. |
OK, I didn't see that you had backtracked on that issue specifically.
To all:
Since we need a working definition of ethics. How's this?
Ethics is the socially and culturally derived set of principles that have to do with determining the appropriateness of motives and conduct most often with the aim of promoting fairness.
Is that fair enough? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Can Feelings be Unethical?
