I think I tend towards pharmikon rather than poison Orn - though I really do take your point. Our inability to operate with more universality is very worrying. The very people who seem to get to discuss much that is universally important seem to lack any clue about the parochial nature of their own positions. The French were out in millions protesting yesterday, and we had workers on the street protesting jobs going to foreigners (Italians this time). You said something moons ago about the lack of decent paying jobs these days compared to our younger days and the protests have a feel of that. We lack some kind of notion that we are in it all together, however much we yearn for individuality within fellowship. I had the feeling watching Newsnight that I'm sick and tired of very well-heeled people talking economics as though they can cut out what would be good for a majority of others because they already assume that what has served them well has done so and will do so for others. This even at the point where the system has demonstrably failed - though in ways these pundits never experience.
On 30 Jan, 04:42, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > And, while it is obvious that public scrutiny may have an affect on > behavior, this too is based in some sort of coercion….either > externally by law and force or internally by notions of guilt and > other such poisons. > > Most of what is accepted as being a social set of ethics are either > projections upon the external what one believes within or that which > has come about by other people agreeing upon specific rules. How these > rules come about can be quite complex. For now, I’ll just suggest that > most of it is accidental. > > Stepping one more step, conceptual (defined in words) morals and > virtues, being based upon pre-established internal meanings to such > things, will never achieve a true sense of universality. Yes, again > they can be imposed and or agreed to…however, all too often and even > among those of virtuous heart, misunderstandings arise due to the > medium. > > On Jan 29, 6:47 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sorry, in somesense, about the wind above - though it is relevant. We > > manage something in here that seems to do some of what Francis might > > be on about. People who can't even write manage this too sometimes. > > > On 30 Jan, 01:39, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > In Derek Parfit's original formulation the Repugnant Conclusion is > > > characterized as follows: “For any possible population of at least ten > > > billion people, all with a very high quality of life, there must be > > > some much larger imaginable population whose existence, if other > > > things are equal, would be better even though its members have lives > > > that are barely worth living”. The Repugnant Conclusion highlights a > > > problem in an area of ethics which has become known as population > > > ethics. The last three decades have witnessed an increasing > > > philosophical interest in questions such as “Is it possible to make > > > the world a better place by creating additional happy creatures?” and > > > “Is there a moral obligation to have children?” The main problem has > > > been to find an adequate theory about the moral value of states of > > > affairs where the number of people, the quality of their lives, and > > > their identities may vary. Since, arguably, any reasonable moral > > > theory has to take these aspects of possible states of affairs into > > > account when determining the normative status of actions, the study of > > > population ethics is of general import for moral theory. As the name > > > indicates, Parfit finds the Repugnant Conclusion unacceptable and many > > > philosophers agree. However, it has been surprisingly difficult to > > > find a theory that avoids the Repugnant Conclusion without implying > > > other equally counterintuitive conclusions. Thus, the question as to > > > how the Repugnant Conclusion should be dealt with and, more generally, > > > what it shows about the nature of ethics has turned the conclusion > > > into one of the cardinal challenges of modern ethics. > > > > Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative > > > ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes > > > the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach which > > > emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that which emphasizes the > > > consequences of actions (consequentialism). Suppose it is obvious that > > > someone in need should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact > > > that the consequences of doing so will maximise well-being, a > > > deontologist to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be acting in > > > accordance with a moral rule such as "Do unto others as you would be > > > done by" and a virtue ethicist to the fact that helping the person > > > would be charitable or benevolent. > > > > We might also reflect that public scrutiny can provide something of an > > > alternative through regulation. Many of the problems implicit in > > > Orn's opener seem to me to be to do with this - giving people the > > > opportunity to lie and cheat under only their own scrutiny - as with > > > bwankers taking us to the cleaners, politicians taking us to war and > > > so on. A range of public choice theories are available here. > > > > Not much of this stuff is about defining the words ethics and morality > > > in any simple sense. > > > > On 30 Jan, 01:23, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > There is a difference between ethics and morality - perhaps more > > > > correctly many differences. Lawyers can behave ethically whilst being > > > > immoral. Like Francis though, I tend to use the words > > > > interchangeably. Chris has given the three-tier definition I'm > > > > familiar with from basic class. Everyone on this thread so far has > > > > done something I regard as profoundly ethical and moral - admitted > > > > being wrong. Craig might regret asking people to take on the burden > > > > of defining - some just love that and I doubt any of us want to sit > > > > through anyone holding forth on modern deontic ethics - but I'm in a > > > > mean mood so everyone - ears back, eyes open, brains looking out of > > > > the window! > > > > > On 29 Jan, 23:10, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I guess it doesn't really matter what words we use, as long as we all > > > > > agree that that is what meant when speak to one another. If we choose > > > > > to use the word in a different way, then the burden is the one > > > > > deviating from the normal use of the word to explain what he means > > > > > thereby. So, for the time being, since Chris was the first define the > > > > > word in such specificity, I say we adopt Chris' for now. If someone > > > > > disagrees with Chris' definition, then they have the burden of > > > > > defining the word themselves. Otherwise, we will assume they mean > > > > > what Chris means. > > > > > > On Jan 29, 3:17 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I was taught that dialectically, there are three levels of > > > > > > authority: > > > > > > Legal, by which the governing body of a nation establishes a canon > > > > > > of law > > > > > > Ethical, which represents an established system, either internal or > > > > > > external, of acceptable versus unacceptable behaviours within > > > > > > specific > > > > > > paradigms > > > > > > Moral, by which the general concepts of good or bad are established, > > > > > > primarily from an emotional perspective. > > > > > > > This seems to differ greatly from your pespective. What are your > > > > > > thoughts on > > > > > > this viewpoint? > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:38 PM, frantheman > > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't think so, Chris. Personally, I tend to use both terms > > > > > > > synonymously. Ethics may, perhaps, have a slightly more > > > > > > > philosophical > > > > > > > flavour. > > > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > > > On 29 Jan., 21:19, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Aren't we conflating two separate issues when we use the words > > > > > > > > ethics and > > > > > > > > morals interchangeably? > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 3:04 PM, ornamentalmind < > > > > > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a different thread, fran suggested an exploration of > > > > > > > > > morality in > > > > > > > > > the context of economics and society. Rather than rephrase > > > > > > > > > him, here > > > > > > > > > are his words: > > > > > > > > > > "…Most importantly, for me at least, many contributions > > > > > > > > > (including > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > own appeal to charity) seem to point to some kind of primacy > > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > "ethical" in the organisation of human societies, be it > > > > > > > > > within a > > > > > > > > > "capitalist" or a "socialist" framework. This point came home > > > > > > > > > to me > > > > > > > > > after reading the thought-provoking article by Howard A. > > > > > > > > > Doughty (and > > > > > > > > > doesn't he live up to his name! :-)) in the link provided by > > > > > > > > > Don. Of > > > > > > > > > course, this insight raises many more questions: how do we > > > > > > > > > achieve > > > > > > > > > more consciousness of the primacy of moral values in > > > > > > > > > society/markets/ > > > > > > > > > public life, how do we educate for real morality in society, > > > > > > > > > and, > > > > > > > > > most > > > > > > > > > fundamtentally, what do we really mean by morality and what > > > > > > > > > systems > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > morality can we propose for our complex, splintered, > > > > > > > > > internetworked, > > > > > > > > > interdependent, open/closed contemporary societies? > > > > > > > > > What a wriggling can of worms! Back to Plato, Aristotle and > > > > > > > > > all the > > > > > > > > > others ... ;-)" – fran > > > > > > > > > > I agreed and wish to explore the area…what we mean by > > > > > > > > > morality, how to > > > > > > > > > educate for it etc. My responding post: > > > > > > > > > > "Fran, I find that you have pointed to the heart of the > > > > > > > > > matter… > > > > > > > > > ethics. > > > > > > > > > As far as I see it, if different people have different > > > > > > > > > ethics, it is > > > > > > > > > probable they will espouse differing economic and/or social > > > > > > > > > systems > > > > > > > > > based upon their personal point of view. This seems so > > > > > > > > > obvious. > > > > > > > > > Many here have studied the subject, formally and informally. > > > > > > > > > And, of > > > > > > > > > course, each person has an opinion. For me, some sort of > > > > > > > > > empathetical > > > > > > > > > or at least sympathetic analysis of how differing ethoses > > > > > > > > > function > > > > > > > > > would be appreciated. And, yes, even in this simple request, > > > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > personal ethos/morality shines through. > > > > > > > > > I have a few ideas on how to progress, however I'll wait and > > > > > > > > > see if > > > > > > > > > those better versed in the topic can guide us towards a more > > > > > > > > > fruitful > > > > > > > > > discussion. " – orn > > > > > > > > > > So, since the other topic continues to appear to include > > > > > > > > > contradictions to this notion, I'm starting a new one to > > > > > > > > > address it > > > > > > > > > for those who wish to explore rather than reject.- Hide > > > > > > > > > quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
