|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 06/16/2007 : 06:43:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Yeah, ok, I suppose you are right. And I guess whether that difference could be called a difference in application of values or difference in definitions of ethics (contemporary use of the term opposed to a broader usage) is probably beside the point. So I'll stop splitting hairs. |
Well, I hate to split hairs, but contemporary usage is what dictionaries record, and they seem to regularly be offering up the broadest usage possible, first - that an ethic is nothing more than a system of moral principles, or that ethics is nothing more than the study of duty. Perhaps half qualify the definition with the word 'human'. |
- 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 - 06/16/2007 : 08:04:27 [Permalink]
|
dv said:
| I don't see where they have claimed that or why it would be relevant if they had. There clearly are objective (though arbitrary) ways to make ethical judgements. |
When they decided, arbitrarily, by fiat, that you cannot make value judgements about some things.
They are obviously mistaken, and the implication of their exclusionism is that there must be an objective measure of right vs wrong.
You need to keep context in mind. Within the scope of any particular ethical system (say for example the US legal system) there are potentially things about which no ethical judgement is possible.
|
I have the context firmly in mind. I am not talking about any specific set of values which people use to make judgements. It is obvious that some specific sets of values exclude many things, or judge them to be ethically neutral or irrelevant. But those are subjective distinctions. It would indeed be ridiculous for the US legal system to take up debate about the rightness or wrongness of.... using pencils to take notes. But if you decide that using pencils to take notes cannot ever, by anyone, be evaluated for its rightness or wrongness... then you are saying that there is an objective measurement for such things.
Despite marf's repeated protest, this is exactly what she and B10 have done.
| So? There is no objective system of mathematics either but that does not stop it from reaching objective conclusions. |
Everyone who uses mathematics here on earth agrees to the same conventions. (there is also an argument to be made about the objective nature of what we use those conventions to describe, with regard to mathematics) Objective conclusions are possible because of this. I also am not saying that you can't reach objective conclusions within a specific values system. Just don't expect people who don't share your same values to agree that your conclusions are appropriate.
| First, in practice, not all judgements about goodness or badness are ethical judgements. |
For you. The point I'm making is that another person, with different values, could easily be making ethical judgements about things you don't think are worth considering from an ethics point of view. To claim that no one, ever, can make ethical judgements about a thing is (repeating myself yet again) implying that some objective measure for right/wrong is available.
Second, the choice of what principles to include in an ethical system to use may be arbitrary but that does not mean that determinations made under a particular ethical system are not objective.
|
Never claimed otherwise.
marfknox said:
| Dude the reason this disagreement is not all that substantial is because we really are splitting hairs at this point. |
No, we are not splitting hairs. You are claiming that you have an objective way to measure right/wrong. There is nothing insubstantial about that claim.
|
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 - 06/16/2007 : 11:58:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
When they decided, arbitrarily, by fiat, that you cannot make value judgements about some things.
|
What can I say? I don't agree that they did that. Marf as much as admitted that she misjudged the context a bit. As for Boron who knows, he may very well feel that the context of his statements should have been clear. In any event I think you are unnessessarily radicalizing their positions.
| They are obviously mistaken, and the implication of their exclusionism is that there must be an objective measure of right vs wrong. |
If they were speaking from an absolute context, then they were mistaken.
| I also am not saying that you can't reach objective conclusions within a specific values system. |
Okay, that's good to know.
| First, in practice, not all judgements about goodness or badness are ethical judgements. |
For you. |
That's not the point. The point is that the use of partial synonyms is serving to confuse the issue.
| Second, the choice of what principles to include in an ethical system to use may be arbitrary but that does not mean that determinations made under a particular ethical system are not objective. |
Never claimed otherwise. |
Well try not to overload the word "objective" so much then. You do give the appearance of claiming otherwise. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 12:42:10 [Permalink]
|
dv said:
| Well try not to overload the word "objective" so much then. You do give the appearance of claiming otherwise. |
I'm only talking about the concept of ethics. I have nothing (in this specific conversation anyway) to say about how people apply their values sets and make decisions about right/wrong.
First, in practice, not all judgements about goodness or badness are ethical judgements.
|
|
That's not the point. The point is that the use of partial synonyms is serving to confuse the issue. |
The confusion comes from people not realizing what this conversation is actually about. All I'm saying is that you can't exclude certain things, universally, from ethical consideration unless there is an objective scale to measure right/wrong. B10 and marf insist that emotions cannot be considered, that ethics just simply doesn't apply. Obviously other people disgree, and do apply ethical reasoning to emotions. So the claim (by B10 and marf) that you can't apply ethics to emotions is obviously false.
There is a legitimate argument to be had about weather or not you should apply ethical judgements to some things, but that isn't what we are talking about in this thread.
|
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 06/16/2007 12:44:29 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 18:21:11 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | No, we are not splitting hairs. You are claiming that you have an objective way to measure right/wrong. |
You are the only person here who thinks I made such a claim. I don't know why you keep insisting I did something that I never did in the first place, and even if you misinterpreted something I said as that, I have repeatedly denied ever meaning to say anything like that, so you need to accept that your interpretation of what I said was wrong.
| All I'm saying is that you can't exclude certain things, universally, from ethical consideration unless there is an objective scale to measure right/wrong. |
How is this statement – that you have made more than once now – not in conflict with this statement of yours? | Objects are not typically subject to ethical judgements. The subject is typically confined to humans. |
Are these not in conflict because you phrased it using the word “typically”? Have I not attempted to make the same clarification when talking about why it is inappropriate/not very meaningful or useful to apply ethics to things people don't have control over? I disagree that people typically make ethical judgments about uncontrolled feelings (remember feelings, not thoughts). Thus, I consider it to be inappropriate to judge a mere feeling as ethical or unethical just I would consider it to be inappropriate to judge the existence of the sun as ethical or unethical. You can disagree with me all you want, and that's just fine, but my exclusion of uncontrolled feelings from ethical judgment isn't fundamentally different from your exclusion of objects, not humans, from ethical judgment.
| There is a legitimate argument to be had about weather or not you should apply ethical judgements to some things, but that isn't what we are talking about in this thread. |
We could if you would let this one miniscule argument go.
|
"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 06/16/2007 18:23:06 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 18:36:26 [Permalink]
|
It seems that everyone in this discussion essentially agrees that feelings can be ethically judged (regardless of how meaningful such judgments are), so I suggest we go forward with discussing whether people should ethically judge feelings in the context of what the potential impact of such judgments would be and how meaningful such judgments are.
Ethical judgments are only useful if they have the potential for some sort of impact, and they are only desirable if the impact is desirable. I wonder if making ethical judgments on feelings has much of an impact, and if so, whether that impact is desirable or not, and for what reasons. I tend to think the impact is marginal because I think circumstances and developed personality cause emotions to be what they are. Consider, for instance, how much fundamentalist Christians who are gay attempt to supress or change their feelings of sexual attraction, and how high the failure rate on that is. If we cannot change or can only marginally change our feelings by condemning or praising them through ethical judgments, what purpose do such judgments have?
Although I think an argument can also be made that judging certain feelings a certain way can have a negative impact on one's health and in some cases, behavior, and if that is the case, presumably the opposite is also true - that judgments can have a positive impact. I dunno - gotta think about it more... |
"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 - 06/16/2007 : 19:03:22 [Permalink]
|
The judgements of feelings serve to change our motivations to act upon those feelings. For a crude example, an adult male's feelings of lust towards 15-year-old girls are so morally wrong that we have laws condemning them. If the adult male judges such feelings to be "bad" and thus refuses to act on them, society as a whole is rewarded by being more peaceful and secure.
Any blanket statement that no feeling or emotion should be subject to ethics will fail, in my view, since some judgements about emotions obviously serve useful purposes. And any blanket statement that all feelings should be judged will equally fail, in my opinion. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 20:06:12 [Permalink]
|
| The judgements of feelings serve to change our motivations to act upon those feelings. For a crude example, an adult male's feelings of lust towards 15-year-old girls are so morally wrong that we have laws condemning them. If the adult male judges such feelings to be "bad" and thus refuses to act on them, society as a whole is rewarded by being more peaceful and secure. |
No, if the adult (pedophiles can be men or women) judges acting on such feelings to be "bad" and thus refuses to do so, society as a whole is rewarded. Pedophilia is a real disorder. It is IMO rightfully considered unhealthy to have such feelings, not unethical. Ethics comes with how the person chooses to deal with those unchosen feelings. When we say "pedophile" people tend to think of child abusers, but there are in fact plenty of people sexually attracted to children who never act on it, as well as ex-abusers who develop lifestyle changes and techniques for resisting future temptations. Sadly, much like therapies for changing homosexual orientation, therapies for ridding pedophiles of sexual feelings for children or adolescents don't have a good track record. From Wikipedia's article on "pedophilia": | A number of proposed treatment techniques for pedophilia have been developed. Many regard pedophilia as highly resistant to psychological interference and have dismissed as ineffective most "reparative strategies."[29] Others, such as Dr. Fred Berlin, believe pedophilia can "indeed be successfully treated," if only the medical community would give it more attention.[20] The reported success rate of modern "reparative" treatment on pedophiles is very low. |
Of course, unlike homosexuality, pedophiles cannot act on their feelings without doing harm. So if the feelings cannot be changed, focus must be on resisting action.
Ethically judging the feelings in-of-themselves ethically condemns even the pedophile who has never abused children, or a recovered abuser who has served time and learned to resist. As much as the feelings disgust those of us who are not pedophiles, it does not good to ethically condemn people for feelings that they can't control. |
"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 - 06/16/2007 : 20:09:21 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Any blanket statement that no feeling or emotion should be subject to ethics will fail, |
Originally I made a blanket statement, but I then changed it to match boron's statement that feelings can/should only be judged ethically to the extent that they can be controlled. |
"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 06/16/2007 20:10:02 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 20:54:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
No, if the adult (pedophiles can be men or women) judges acting on such feelings to be "bad" and thus refuses to do so, society as a whole is rewarded. |
Whether one judges the feeling itself or the act to be "bad," the result is the same.| Pedophilia is a real disorder. It is IMO rightfully considered unhealthy to have such feelings, not unethical. Ethics comes with how the person chooses to deal with those unchosen feelings. When we say "pedophile" people tend to think of child abusers, but there are in fact plenty of people sexually attracted to children who never act on it... |
It's for that very reason, marf, that I did not say "pedophile."
I'm sure just about everyone has had the experience of leering, just a little bit, at someone else's nice figure only to have that someone turn around and display the evidence of their youth, resulting in a mental reponse of "oh, dammit" or "jailbait!" or whatever. It's a snap ethical judgement saying "now that I know how young that person is, I'm not allowed to think that way about their body anymore."
(And it's been my experience that it's "creepy" - a slightly negative moral judgement - for adults to express the idea, "if she were only a few years older..." because the implication is that it's only the law holding such a person back from action.)
And such an ethical judgement does serve a purpose, since our society has recognized that sexual maturity is attained long before mental maturity is in the vast majority of children. But there was a time when the ethic was different, and girls who weren't married by 14 years of age were called "spinsters."Of course, unlike homosexuality, pedophiles cannot act on their feelings without doing harm. So if the feelings cannot be changed, focus must be on resisting action.
Ethically judging the feelings in-of-themselves ethically condemns even the pedophile who has never abused children, or a recovered abuser who has served time and learned to resist. |
Even though I wasn't talking about a disease state, what motivation is there for a person to resist such urges if he/she judges them to be acceptable?| As much as the feelings disgust those of us who are not pedophiles, it does not good to ethically condemn people for feelings that they can't control. |
Oh, I see the problem: I've been talking about people judging their own feelings and emotions this whole time. |
- 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 - 06/16/2007 : 21:00:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave wrote: | Any blanket statement that no feeling or emotion should be subject to ethics will fail, |
Originally I made a blanket statement, but I then changed it to match boron's statement that feelings can/should only be judged ethically to the extent that they can be controlled. |
And I said earlier that the vast majority of people think that they should be able to control their feelings, which itself is an ethical judgement that flying into a rage, uncontrollable sobbing, inappropriate laughter (etc) are "bad" things. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 22:24:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
...feelings can/should only be judged ethically to the extent that they can be controlled.
|
There is also the practical problem of determining to what extent feelings can be controlled.
I think in most cases the issue is that people simply don't know how to control their feelings, not that feelings are inherently uncontrollable.
As a practical matter if making ethical judgements about an emotion interferes with correcting the emotion or the resulting behaviour then it makes sense to suspend ethical judgements. Ethics is just a tool for promoting "acceptable" behaviour if the tool doesn't work in a particular situation it should be set aside for one that does. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 22:38:09 [Permalink]
|
marf said:
You are the only person here who thinks I made such a claim. I don't know why you keep insisting I did something that I never did in the first place, and even if you misinterpreted something I said as that, I have repeatedly denied ever meaning to say anything like that, so you need to accept that your interpretation of what I said was wrong.
|
Go back and read the thread. B10, and you (since you agreed with him), have clearly taken the position that some things cannot be the subject of ethical considerations.
In order for that to be the case there must be an objective standard available to make that determination, and by implication there must be an objective measure of right and wrong.
| All I'm saying is that you can't exclude certain things, universally, from ethical consideration unless there is an objective scale to measure right/wrong. |
How is this statement – that you have made more than once now – not in conflict with this statement of yours?
Objects are not typically subject to ethical judgements. The subject is typically confined to humans.
|
|
I can't answer this without being insulting and referring you to a dictionary for the definition of common English words.
The only way those statements conflict is if you think "not typically subject to" means the same thing as "cannot be subject to".
The second sentence of mine there was also in response to a different question you asked. I admit I should not have responded at all to your red-herring, but hey, not even Dude is perfect.
You claim you have a masters degree, if I accept that claim at face value then the most plausible explanation of your cherry-picking and false conflation here is that you are deliberately trying to provoke me into calling you names. Was I right before? Do you really get off on being abused in internet forums? ....maybe there is a market for rhetorical spanking out there, I could start my own website and charge an access fee....
| Thus, I consider it to be inappropriate to judge a mere feeling as ethical or unethical just I would consider it to be inappropriate to judge the existence of the sun as ethical or unethical. You can disagree with me all you want, and that's just fine, but my exclusion of uncontrolled feelings from ethical judgment isn't fundamentally different from your exclusion of objects, not humans, from ethical judgment. |
You agreed with B10 when he said there were things that cannot be the subject of ethical consideration. If you are now admitting error, then ok. As long as you now recognize that deciding what you should apply ethical judgements to is, itself, a value judgement, and that you cannot universally exclude anything. As I said earlier, the argument about what we should or should not apply ethical considerations to is a different argument than the one we are having.
And I do not ex |
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 |
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 23:17:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
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". |
Guess I missed that by a mile. I was trying to figure out your position on this. Now I know.
| 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. |
Aren't ethics the means by which we can determine the right/wrong of specific things? If that is the case, then we either need an objective set of ethics or ethics are subjectively based on societal norms (whatever the hell those things are...) As you point out, objective right and wrong is an absurd concept, the more I think about the concept the more I realize that religion attempts to define an objective set of values, but these values are not black and white/right or wrong, but based on too much other data for such a simplistic approach to defining values.
| 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. |
Agreed.
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. |
Apparently. It's also entirely possible that I was trying to rectify the difference between where you are standing and where the others are. I still think that you, marf, and B10 are all talking at different sides of the issue - of you are all seeing the same issue. My 2 cents anyway. Maybe this clarifies that part of what I was trying to say. On some things I shouldn't attempt brevity.
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. |
I understand what you are saying. But, ethical judgements are made based on our personal value sets. I agree that the value set should not be part of the definition, but it is a part of the process of ethical determination.
| 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? |
I agree with you on this point. My neighbor across the street a few years ago was confined at Fort Logan and not by choice either.
| 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. |
I suppose you are referring to where I make a statement about judging emotions after stating that they are neither ethical or unethical. I'm not sure how to clarify, but I don't see that I am contradicting myself on this issue. When a person judges their own emotions they are applying their personal set of values to that emotion. The emotion itself has no value set. If you still see contradiction - I'll work on a better way of expressing myself on this issue.
| 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. |
I do agree with this observation.
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. |
Ah, I see that I made the same error I noted was being made in this entire discussion. Feelings are neither ethical nor unethical but rather their expression is subject to ethical evaluation, which is a different topic from the feeling itself being ethical. I'm not sure that B10 intended to so narrowly define the topic, but now I understand the conflict on the subject. |
...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
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 23:33:38 [Permalink]
|
| [i]Originally posted by dv82mattSo we have those arguing from the context of general principles of ethics and those arguing from the context of the practical application as it exists today. The differing contexts make the disagreement insubstantial. |
Thank you dv82! This is what I've been trying to articulate. And it was so simple. |
...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
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Can Feelings be Unethical?
