So you are a consequentialist then Vam?
On 31 Jan, 04:31, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:
> It is not just about freedom of choice or about arguments post facto.
> It is about consequences : e.g. Israeli attack on Gaza ; al Quaida
> terror bombings ; murders ; robbery ; child abuse ; etc. etc.
>
> Morality and Ethics takes its norms from the consequences of the
> choices we exercise.
>
> On Jan 30, 10:50 pm, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Some folks around here, like Archytas and Ornamentalmind and Chazwin,
> > probably have an inkling about my own views on ethics and morality. My
> > own three part separation on these questions isn't srtrictly
> > Claccical" like Chris Jenkins'. I separate, basically Epistemology
> > from Ontology and tlastly Ethics.... but I don't want to bore those
> > who may not be interested. I look at Ethics and Morality, compbined,
> > as a question of a choice betweena a variety of possible courses of
> > action that are possible, (to a thinking being, of course) when
> > confronted with each and every situation. I like to separate the
> > possible courses of action (along William of Ockham's notion of Signs)
> > possible in every such situation into the "square" of logical
> > opposition, originally thought up by Aristotle.... this gives me
> > something like the following, taking as an example an "amorous"
> > situation....
> > Love / Have Sex with one's own mate ............. Lust /have sex with
> > another's mate
>
> > Love / Have sex with another's mate................Lust / have sex
> > with one's own mate
>
> > from her, you have to plug in your own (or society's or religio's , or
> > whomever 's ) assignations of moral or ethical prtedicated values.
> > Thing is.... if you call, one completely morally proper... that makes
> > all the others "logicallY improper to some degree or other.... let me
> > show you.
> > Love / Have Sex with one's own mate ............. Lust /have sex with
> > another's mate
> > GOOD / GOOD..............................................BAD /BAD
> > Love / Have sex with another's mate................Lust / have sex
> > with one's own mate
> > GOOD / BAD................................................BAD /GOOD
> > Whatever choice as the GOOD/GOOD any person makes I call that his or
> > her "individual" point of view of moral or ethivcal predicated values
> > fior that particula course of action.
> > My own "thing" here is just to set up a "framework" to show how such
> > "ethical" judgments vary and differ from person to ,person.... It's up
> > to the individual person, or the author, or the society. or th,
> > religion, or whatever, to decide for themselves what those
> > "assignations of moral or ethical value judgments" are.... chances
> > are that whatever they decide, someone or other will argue.
> > nominal9
>
> > On Jan 30, 11:31 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I think it is important because of the fact that many people, (lawyers,
> > > you
> > > said, but I'm thinking CEO's in particular here), rely on this to just
> > > their
> > > behaviour. They dance among the tiers when responding to the tears. "Tut
> > > tut, youngsters, while this action of ours (most profitable indeed!) might
> > > not be considered MORAL by your standards, it is most certainly LEGAL, and
> > > our advisory board tells us that it even complies with our industry's
> > > ETHICS
> > > commission. So dry your eyes! It's GOOD after all!"
>
> > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:23 PM, 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 -- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
