Long ago I saw said pundits as part of the NIMBY croud...mostly commercial mouths...similar to the 'news' on most media outlets these days. I still remember a whole slew of reporting 'rules' that were taught in university that helped to strain out much subjectivity. Not today.
Oh, and I could only find pharmacon...and while I think I grok your point...I find such lack of virtue to be an actual poisoning of the soul, essence, your choice. On Jan 29, 9:35 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
