|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 06/18/2007 : 14:47:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dude wrote: | There is no definition or usage of those phrases, that I am aware of, that allows them to mean the same thing. |
People use "can't" in such a way all the time. You've never heard someone say "You can't do that..." in the context of meaning that it shouldn't be done or as in it can't be done in any way that isn't absurd?
You still aren't acknowledging that boron and I explicitly rejected your definition of "ethics" as inadequate, and we were both applying a more narrow definition of ethics that included not just application to humans, but to things which can be controlled.
I'm sick of this debate with you because I clarified my position pretty early on in this discussion. You started off swearing at me intensely, calling me dishonest, accusing me of calling you a liar, all over a simple misunderstanding of what I was saying in the context of how it was intended. Let it go. Move on!
|
I'm with Dude on this one.
"Not typically applied to" means not normally applied to.
"Can't be applied to" is a much stronger statement which leaves no room for the possibility of exception.
It may be symantics to you, but it does muddy the waters when you use them interchangably.
Ethics is the study of right and wrong as defined by societal norms or corporation policy. This is a broad definition, but it is accurate. The term has been used in other contexts when describing behaviors which are preferred and disapproved of in a corporate setting or societal setting. (Usually through policies and laws)
As this is the way the term is defined by many psychological journals as being such and is the basis for Geert Hofstede's 1980 study "Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values". |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 06/18/2007 : 15:28:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Boron10
By the way, what does "FFS" stand for? It is an acronym with which I am unfamiliar. |
"For fuck's sake." |
Oh! Thanks. Originally posted by Trish
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. |
Emphasis added -- B10
This is a good part of what I've been trying to say. The expression of feelings is a choice and can therefore be an ethical matter. Wearing the color blue is a choice and can be an ethical matter. Feeling irritated when somebody misinterprets you is not necessarily a choice, and thus not necessarily subject to ethical evaluation. Expressing that irritation, though, can definitely be subject to ethical evaluation. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 06/18/2007 : 15:57:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
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. |
That is a very interesting discussion that may lie at the root of my argument. I think feelings are, if at all, only marginally controllable. I tend to experience a flash of anger when I feel physical pain. I don't think (though I may be mistaken) there is much I can do to change that. | 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. |
Are you suggesting we abandon ethics as a tool if it fails to produce desired results? That is a novel idea (to me at least), though I am hard pressed to come up with a way to do it. Do you have any specific examples to help illustrate this? |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 16:18:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
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. |
That doesn't mean they can control these feelings; however, the actions they perform ("flying into a rage," etc) are controllable and thus subject to ethical judgment. | 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. |
First of all, do we have laws condemning "feelings of lust" toward children or expressions of these feelings? I understand it is a minor distinction, but that distinction is key to my point. | 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. |
Hmm... I was about to argue that I am not talking about the utility of ethical evaluation of feelings, but I cannot think of a better way to explain my argument right now. I will think about this. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 16:20:27 [Permalink]
|
Val wrote: | I'm with Dude on this one. |
Fine with me since the thing you are with him on is the same thing that I consider to be an insignificant difference in position. Someone can call it a difference in definition of “ethics” and therefore what can be subject to ethical judgment, or someone can call it a difference in value judgment of what should be up to ethical scrutiny. Toe-mae-toe, toe-ma-toe.
I already conceded, many pages ago, that under the broad definition of ethics, indeed anything is up for ethical judgment. But I also said that I think that isn't a very useful or meaningful usage. I think I've made my position clear, and if you disagree, I politely agree to disagree with you.
My problems with Dude are his insistence that I'm arguing for an objective system for judging right and wrong outside the constraints of mere human consensus through language. I have advocated no such universal system. I also have a problem with his insistence that I intended to call him a liar and that I am either a moron or a deceptive asshole just because I don't agree with him or use rhetoric that he thinks is the only proper way to phrase things. And I don't like being told to go fuck myself either, but maybe that's just nit picking.
| It may be symantics to you, but it does muddy the waters when you use them interchangably. |
I don't deny that it does and has muddied the water. That is why I have repeatedly acknowledged a misunderstanding and clarified my position. I assumed what I meant would be understood through context, and indeed it was understood by several people in this discussion. But other, like Dude have assumed I take some extreme position that I simply do not take. And when I try to explain to him that I don't take that position, he calls me a liar and/or moron.
Are you with Dude that this is a significant disagreement or do you agree with Matt and others here that it is a rather insignificant difference of position?
| This is a broad definition, but it is accurate. |
I have never denied that this is a definition for ethics. I and NOT arguing that the definition of ethics that I came into this conversation with is the one and only accurate definition of “ethics”. But unless you are going to argue that the broad definition can be the only definition, I fail to see how this disputes my position.
I don't think it is useful to have this discussion using a broad definition of ethics that allows for anything to be subject to ethical judgment. The result of such a discussion would go something like this:
Can feeling be unethical?
Yes.
Wow, that sure was interesting. Next topic!
Two pages ago Trish remarked: | I'm not sure that B10 intended to so narrowly define the topic |
If I'm reading boron's posts correctly he didn't mean to so narrowly define the topic at all. Since boron started this discussion and made his more pragmatic definition of ethics clear in the context of his initial post, I fail to see how it is enlightening to insist that we go with the br |
"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 06/18/2007 16:22:25 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 17:13:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Val wrote: | I'm with Dude on this one. |
Fine with me since the thing you are with him on is the same thing that I consider to be an insignificant difference in position. Someone can call it a difference in definition of “ethics” and therefore what can be subject to ethical judgment, or someone can call it a difference in value judgment of what should be up to ethical scrutiny. Toe-mae-toe, toe-ma-toe.
I already conceded, many pages ago, that under the broad definition of ethics, indeed anything is up for ethical judgment. But I also said that I think that isn't a very useful or meaningful usage. I think I've made my position clear, and if you disagree, I politely agree to disagree with you.
My problems with Dude are his insistence that I'm arguing for an objective system for judging right and wrong outside the constraints of mere human consensus through language. I have advocated no such universal system. I also have a problem with his insistence that I intended to call him a liar and that I am either a moron or a deceptive asshole just because I don't agree with him or use rhetoric that he thinks is the only proper way to phrase things. And I don't like being told to go fuck myself either, but maybe that's just nit picking. |
Marf,
I am not addressing Dude's perception of what you said to him. I don't agree with his assessment that you called him a liar. I was strictly limiting my response to the crux of what I see as cause for misunderstanding and the hubbub surrounding it. I'd like to keep it cerebral rather than emotional at this point because i think that after a while we no longer are talking with one another, but at one another as has so pointedly been shown over these nine pages.
| It may be symantics to you, but it does muddy the waters when you use them interchangably. |
I don't deny that it does and has muddied the water. That is why I have repeatedly acknowledged a misunderstanding and clarified my position. I assumed what I meant would be understood through context, and indeed it was understood by several people in this discussion. But other, like Dude have assumed I take some extreme position that I simply do not take. And when I try to explain to him that I don't take that position, he calls me a liar and/or moron.
Are you with Dude that this is a significant disagreement or do you agree with Matt and others here that it is a rather insignificant difference of position? |
I think that this is a disagreement of which the severity has been ramped up only by the emotions generated. The usage of absolutist terms such as "can't" tend to convey a more extremist position rather than your intended "not typically" position.
| This |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 17:15:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
Originally posted by Dave W.
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. |
That doesn't mean they can control these feelings... |
I know. That's why I said, "...people think that they should be able to control their feelings..." (emphasis in original).| ...however, the actions they perform ("flying into a rage," etc) are controllable and thus subject to ethical judgment. |
I know. You'll get no disagreement from me on whether actions can be, or should be, the subject of ethical evaluation.| First of all, do we have laws condemning "feelings of lust" toward children or expressions of these feelings? I understand it is a minor distinction, but that distinction is key to my point. |
As I understand it, anti-pedophilia laws are some of the most-strict in the U.S. Drug paraphenalia is freely sold in open, public "head shops," but simply being in possession of some of Traci Lords' earliest work will land you in prison or a mental hospital. If you admit to your doctor that you're obsessing about children, your stay will be longer - a true "thought police" situation.| Hmm... I was about to argue that I am not talking about the utility of ethical evaluation of feelings, but I cannot think of a better way to explain my argument right now. I will think about this. |
marf brought the practicality of ethics into the discussion. |
- 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 - 06/18/2007 : 18:14:05 [Permalink]
|
Val wrote: | I think that this is a disagreement of which the severity has been ramped up only by the emotions generated. The usage of absolutist terms such as "can't" tend to convey a more extremist position rather than your intended "not typically" position. |
But Val, the word “can't” is in fact used in a non-absolutist way all the time, such as in the examples I gave. Like I said, it is fine by me if you want to disagree. I would respect your differing view, but I have not been persuaded to change mine. Nor do I think I need to change mine for us to continue with this discussion in a constructive manner. In fact, the conversation has continued in other veins already.
More importantly, I clarified my use of the word “can't” a long time ago in this discussion. It is very clear that I never intended it in any absolutist sense, and that I had thought that would have been clear from context. Now it is made explicitly clear. If there is still a disagreement here, it is a rather insignificant one. If we have all made our positions on this particular issue clear, can we not move on to other aspects of this discussion?
|
"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 - 06/18/2007 : 19:08:14 [Permalink]
|
B10 said:
| Hm. Perhaps "can't" is not an appropriate word here. People can also attempt to see what a triangular circle would look like. In this case, I don't mean "it's not possible," just that it is inapplicable. |
Your continued insistence on using these moronic and inappropriate analogies detracts from any possible point you may have.
Again, it is a personal values judgement, on your part, to decide that ethics are "inapplicable" to something.
Also, if you wish to make such a decision, you need to be able to defend it with a why. (this is the essence of moral arguments, btw) For every single thing you decide ethics shouldn't be applied to, you need to provide an explanation. Calling something "silly" doesn't cut it. If you think it is irrelevant, you need to explain why. To engage in a debate about the morality of a thing, you have to be able to defend your position rationally and consistently.
If you now recant your previous claim that ethics can't be applied to some things, then most of our disagreement will evaporate.
Citing the overwhelming empirical evidence that opposes your position, demonstrating it to be false, is not a logical fallacy.
| Let's try that definition again. Your definition, "Ethics deal with judgements of right vs wrong," is not specific enough since it includes everything. If I were to similarly expand the definition of color to include everything, we would have the ridiculous statements I have been making. By excluding nothing, your definition becomes useless. |
Color can be measured objectively. So your analogy fails, badly. My counter analogy, however, works well. If you restrict the definition of ethics, to exclude some things from consideration, then (like color) there must be an objective way to measure right/wrong.
| First of all, do we have laws condemning "feelings of lust" toward children or expressions of these feelings? I understand it is a minor distinction, but that distinction is key to my point. |
You can't weasel out like that. The set of illegal things does not equal the set of things people consider wrong. SO, really, you have no point.
| The expression of feelings is a choice and can therefore be an ethical matter. Wearing the color blue is a choice and can be an ethical matter. Feeling irritated when somebody misinterprets you is not necessarily a choice, and thus not necessarily subject to ethical evaluation. Expressing that irritation, though, can definitely be subject to ethical evaluation. |
You just can't get away from wanting to talk about what you think should or should not be subject to ethical evaluation.
For the 50th time, this isn't what this conversation is about.
I don't give a fuck how you choose to apply your personal values to determine what you think is relevant to ethical considerations. Nor does anyone else.
The question I should be asking you is, why do you think you can decide, for anyone else, what they should or should not apply ethical considerations to?
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 19:29:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Val wrote: | I think that this is a disagreement of which the severity has been ramped up only by the emotions generated. The usage of absolutist terms such as "can't" tend to convey a more extremist position rather than your intended "not typically" position. |
But Val, the word “can't” is in fact used in a non-absolutist way all the time, such as in the examples I gave. Like I said, it is fine by me if you want to disagree. I would respect your differing view, but I have not been persuaded to change mine. Nor do I think I need to change mine for us to continue with this discussion in a constructive manner. In fact, the conversation has continued in other veins already.
More importantly, I clarified my use of the word “can't” a long time ago in this discussion. It is very clear that I never intended it in any absolutist sense, and that I had thought that would have been clear from context. Now it is made explicitly clear. If there is still a disagreement here, it is a rather insignificant one. If we have all made our positions on this particular issue clear, can we not move on to other aspects of this discussion?
|
The last paragraph and example did try to move on towards the meat of the discussion instead of the semantic issues. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 19:32:15 [Permalink]
|
| For the 50th time, this isn't what this conversation is about. |
Says Dude to the guy who started the conversation. *scratches head*
For the record, my view is pretty much identical to boron's regarding how ethics should be defined. (edited to add - how it should be defined for the sake of his conversation) I think it is Dude who is seemingly trying to assert that the broad definition is the only objective definition of "ethics", and that somehow his choice of definition isn't a value judgment, but ours is. |
"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 06/18/2007 19:34:09 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 21:00:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
That is a very interesting discussion that may lie at the root of my argument. I think feelings are, if at all, only marginally controllable. I tend to experience a flash of anger when I feel physical pain. I don't think (though I may be mistaken) there is much I can do to change that. |
Well you probably don't judge your flash of anger to be unethical so you don't really have a motivation to try and change it. Bit of a catch 22 there.
If you were to judge your anger in response to pain to be unethical that might provide a motivation for change. It is only upon making an earnest attempt to change that you would dicover the degree to which the feeling can be controlled.
Suppose that instead of feeling anger in response to pain you instead felt intense anger in response to pleasure. In that context it may be useful to judge such an inappropriate feeling as unethical if doing so would aid in controlling it.
| Are you suggesting we abandon ethics as a tool if it fails to produce desired results? That is a novel idea (to me at least), though I am hard pressed to come up with a way to do it. Do you have any specific examples to help illustrate this? |
Not really. What I mean is that we should focus on the paradigm that is most likely to produce desirable results.
As a specific example consider depression. One could judge severely depressed people as simply lazy, idle neredowells who should just "snap out of it", but such an approach is unlikely to be helpful and in fact is only likely to intensify the feelings of guilt and worthlessness in the depressed person thus further exaberating the problem in a kind of vicious circle. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 22:26:03 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
| I think it is Dude who is seemingly trying to assert that the broad definition is the only objective definition of "ethics", and that somehow his choice of definition isn't a value judgment, but ours is. |
Maybe you really are just to stupid to comprehend this simple point.
The only way to not make a value judgement on this is to not exclude anything from potential ethical consideration. I do not exclude anything from potential consideration, therefore I do not apply my personal values set to what can be subject to ethical judgements.
You, on the other hand, when you decide that the color of my shirt or how I feel about something, is not subject to ethical considerations, have to make a values judgement to reach that conclusion.
You and B10 sound like ID creationists denying that ID implicates a supernatural designer, because they won't speak about the implications of their conclusion.
In order for your conclusion to be correct, that some things cannot be subject to ethical consideration, there must be an objective standard to base that conclusion on.
Neither of you have been able to state the premises you use to reach your conclusion. The only thing B10 has managed is his condescending nonsense about what tuesday looks like.
Simple empirical observation puts the lie to the conclusion that feelings can't be subject to ethical consideration.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 22:42:02 [Permalink]
|
I don't think it is useful to have this discussion using a broad definition of ethics that allows for anything to be subject to ethical judgment. The result of such a discussion would go something like this:
Can feeling be unethical?
Yes.
|
The answer must be "yes" (because the implication of a "no" answer is an objective standard of right/wrong), and that is as far as that particular discussion needs to go!
It is a separate matter, entirely, to talk about the practical application of ethical judgements. The debate about what we should apply ethical judgements to, and about standards of right and wrong, would probably fill more storage space than the SFN server has! It is one of the central themes of human existence, arguments about right and wrong.
I'll say it again, because it obviously needs repeating:
If you exclude anything, universally, from ethical consideration you are implying an objective measure of right and wrong. I'd be interested in the actual premises that lead to this conclusion. (its my hope that by trying to articulate a set of premises that let you universally exclude something from ethical consideration that you might grasp the implications)
|
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 - 06/18/2007 : 22:43:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Maybe you really are just to stupid to comprehend this simple point. |
Your hyper-aggressiveness is getting pretty damn tedious. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Can Feelings be Unethical?
