Dear Luis,
this is a very important issue in ethics indeed.
We have, as you remark, a long tradition (starting with Socrates and the
Sophists in the West) about it that considers the choice of the good as only
(!) dependent on knowledge/information. This is the
intellectualist position. The other position, which we could call a
"decisionist" one, stresses the importance of the will as source of good/bad
action. Neither of these positions can be considered by themselves as
satisfactory. Common sense teaches us that the mere knowledge about what is
supposed to be a better option (and moral decisions are taken by being aware
of different options of human behavior) is not enough for doing the good.
Without a "good will" (Kant) no good moral action comes forth.
But, on the other hand, there is no pure decision as such, i.e. all human
decision are already "in-formed" my previous knowledge (mostly implicit) of
what is the good "rule" of action. They are based on the common accepted
morality in a society. This (implicit) morality has an important role
because it allows us to act on "good conscience" without having to reflect
every time we have to decide something. Thisis also the case of law, but law
is basically local (international law is difficult to apply as there is no
"central power". This makes the importance of explicit quasi-moral rules
(like the Univ. Declaration of Human Rights) so important and also the
international/intercultural ethical discussion (such as in our list).
We cannot make always an explicit (intellectual) analysis of every human
action i.e. of every action implying rationality. In Scholastic philosophy
there is a famous distinction between "actio humana" (rational action) and
"actio hominis" (i.e. all other kinds of action that are not reflected my
rationality). So, by making explicit our motivations and by reflecting once
more on the structure of morality in ethical theory (this is then some kind
of second order reflection), i.e. by explicit "in-forming" the will, there
is still the question of taking "de facto" the decision. In order for a
decision to be qualified as a moral one it is necessary to view the reasons
lead by "maximes" (Kant) or judgements that are "categorical" (i.e. related
to the action itself, not to the motivations of the actor),
intersubjectively proved or generalizable/universalizable (also Kant).
But also the other older (Western) tradition of ethics is important. It is
no related to ethics as theory of morality centred on moral judgments, but
on a theory of "good life" and open to local and individualizable options.
Of course, in our globalized world, what is "good" in the local level can be
very bad in the global level, and vice verse. So it would be a bad theory if
we would oppose the old and the new (modern) tradition of ethical thinking.
In other words, in-forming our moral actions implice a double-bind
reflection (universality and particularity) but it rests finally on the
question about the will itself a stated alredy by Aristotle (against
Socrates/Plato): the goal of ethical theory is doing the good, i.e. it is
something external to this theory. The great question is then what "moves"
us to do the good/the bad.
kind regards
Rafael
Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro
Hochschule der Medien (HdM) University of Applied Sciences, Wolframstr. 32,
70191 Stuttgart, Germany
Private: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voice Stuttgart: + 49 - 711 - 25706 - 182
Voice private: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 - 22 (Fax: -21)
Homepage: www.capurro.de
Homepage ICIE: http://icie.zkm.de
Homepage IRIE: http://www.i-r-i-e.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Luis Serra (by way of Pedro Marijuan<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] The Identity of Ethics
Dear Pedro, Michael and colleagues,
After a long silence in these exciting FIS discussions, I would like to
share with you just a couple of comments inspired in the elegant messages
exchanged.
What is the type of information required to be integral, to reach
individual's completeness? In my opinion, Integrity, in the sense referred
by Michael, requires a much deeper knowledge than just intellectual
knowledge: it requires to realize it, to deeply assume it. In my opinion
it is not either a question of, say, "blind belief" in some behavior or
something doctrinal. Integrity, in the sense I understood to Michael,
comes naturally as a result of personal maturity and experience.
Therefore, in the context of this great discussion on Ethics and
Information I wonder:
- what kind or what type of information is required to reach individual's
completeness?, and also,
- where this information can be obtained?
A second comment very much connected with the previous one.
Somebody said (Socrates, I think) that human beings' evil does not exist,
it is just a question of ignorance. Again, a similar question arises to
me: What kind of information could be the "antidote" of human evil? Does
this question make a very special sense in our globalized societies?
All the best,
Luis
---------------------------------------
Luis M. Serra
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering
University of Zaragoza, Spain.
At 15:04 27/04/2006 +0200, you wrote:
Dear Michael and colleagues,
Am afraid I cannot make such elegant a response to your comments as Stan
has done. Both the "integrity" of the individual and his/her
"contemplation" of the natural environment appear indeed as crucial
factors for the ethical standpoint. I do not see very clearly how to
connect them--but will try. Who would deny that the ethical discourse on
the environment is so much central, appreciated and concerned nowadays?
(Even solitary Mr. Robinson would be judged ethically by contemporary
ecologists on how respectfully he behaved and afforded his living upon the
island environment.) Cultural, economic, religious factors may be invoked
in more general terms, but perhaps the personal decorum around the
"complete" individual has been the basic engine in the development of
social ethics. It is part of the ideal of scholarship in science.
Visionary individuals who have sculpted the subtle system of rewards and
punishments --on personal reputations basically-- that propel
organizational networks and maintain cooperation in complex societies. It
is not that most people are "good" per se, but that a relatively
well-designed social order makes cheating behaviors unattractive --taking
for free group's benefits and running away.
Thus, apart from its inherent aesthetical aspects, "integrity" would
convey an untractable informational problem about the individual's
behavioral evaluation of the total milieu. The discussion on ethics,
pushing it at its most impossible or "Quixotic" extremes, takes us to
impossible or "foundational problems" of information science. Seemingly,
in order to grasp them, it is necessary that we break away from quite a
few obsolete ways of thinking and disciplinary walls.
best
Pedro
At 10:35 25/04/2006, you wrote:
Dear Pedro,
I find your statement, that Robinson Crusoe did not need
any ethics in his solitary island, very intellectually stimulating.
I actually take the opposite view of ethics. I believe that
the ethical individual is one who has INTEGRITY.
Integrity means completeness. An individual's completeness
is tested most by their capacity to be alone.
If an individual can be alone, indeed prefers to be alone,
then they are complete. This will mean that they have
no need to use another person, steal from them, exploit them,
and generally have an existence that is parasitic on
another person.
A complete individual, one with integrity, can enter society
without the need to use others, exploit them, etc.
I argue therefore that, paradoxically, ethics towards others
actually begins with the capacity for aloneness.
The unethical individual is empty - and strives always to
maintain that emptiness, by avoiding internal growth,
inward examination and self-understanding.
This constant flight from self sends them continually
in search for others upon whom they are entirely dependent.
They have no identity other than what they can steal from others.
It is the relation that an individual has to themselves,
when alone, that determines their relation to others.
By the way, Pedro, thank you so much for creating
such an interesting debate on ethics.
best
Michael
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
