RE: computer pain
Peter Jones writes: Perhaps none of the participants in this thread really disagree. Let me see if I can summarise: Individuals and societies have arrived at ethical beliefs for a reason, whether that be evolution, what their parents taught them, or what it says in a book believed to be divinely inspired. Perhaps all of these reasons can be subsumed under evolution if that term can be extended beyond genetics to include all the ideas, beliefs, customs etc. that help a society to survive and propagate itself. Now, we can take this and formalise it in some way so that we can discuss ethical questions rationally: Murder is bad because it reduces the net happiness in society - Utilitarianism Murder is bed because it breaks the sixth commandment - Judaism and Christianity (interesting that this only no. 6 on a list of 10: God knows his priorities) Ethics then becomes objective, given the rules. The meta-ethical explanation of evolution, broadly understood, as generating the various ethical systems is also objective. However, it is possible for someone at the bottom of the heap to go over the head of utilitarianism, evolution, even God and say: Why should murder be bad? I don't care about the greatest good for the greatest number, I don't care if the species dies out, and I think God is a bastard and will shout it from hell if sends me there for killing people for fun and profit. This is my own personal ethical belief, and you can't tell me I'm wrong! And the psychopath is right: no-one can actually fault him on a point of fact or a point of logic. The psychopath is wrong. He doesn't want to be murdered, but he wants to murder. His ethical rule is therefore inconsistent and not really ethical at all. Who says his ethical rule is inconsistent? If he made the claim do unto others as you would have others do unto you he would be inconsistent, but he makes no such claim. Billions of people have lived and died in societies where it is perfectly ethical and acceptable to kill inferior races or inferior species. If they accept some version of the edict you have just elevated to a self-evident truth it would be do unto others as you would have them do unto you, unless they are foreigners, or taste good to eat, or worship different gods. Perfectly consistent, even if horrible. In the *final* analysis, ethical beliefs are not a matter of fact or logic, and if it seems that they are then there is a hidden assumption somewhere. Everything starts with assumptions. The questions is whether they are correct. A lunatic could try defining 2+2=5 as valid, but he will soon run into inconsistencies. That is why we reject 2+2=5. Ethical rules must apply to everybody as a matter of definition. Definitions supply correct assumptions. So you think arguments about such matters as abortion, capital punishment and what sort of social welfare system we should have are just like arguments about mathematics or geology, and with enough research there should be universal agreement? Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: computer pain
Peter Jones writes: It is indisputable that morality varies in practice across communities. But the contention of ethical objectivism is not that everyone actually does hold to a single objective system of ethics; it is only that ethical questions can be resolved objectively in principle. The existence of an objective solution to any kind of problem is always compatible with the existence of people who, for whatever reason, do not subscribe. The roundness of the Earth is no less an objective fact for the existence of believers in the Flat Earth theory.(It is odd that the single most popular argument for ethical subjectivism has so little logical force). The Flat Earther is *wrong*. He claims that if you sail in a straight line you will eventually fall off the edge. But if you do sail in a straight line, you don't don't fall off the edge; lots of people have done it. The psychopath, on the other hand, merely claims that if he kills someone, he does not think it is a bad thing. And indeed, he kills someone, and he does not think it is a bad thing. He is *not* wrong; there is no way you could even claim he is wrong, like the Flat Earther claiming that sailors have lied about circumnavigating the globe. You could argue that if everyone were a psychopath we would all be dead, and he might even agree with you that that would be the case, but then turn around and say, So what? Better dead than cissies! As Jamie Rose said, there were societies such as the Shakers who didn't mind if they died out and in fact did die out, and they are not usually considered immoral. Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: computer pain
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Peter Jones writes: Perhaps none of the participants in this thread really disagree. Let me see if I can summarise: Individuals and societies have arrived at ethical beliefs for a reason, whether that be evolution, what their parents taught them, or what it says in a book believed to be divinely inspired. Perhaps all of these reasons can be subsumed under evolution if that term can be extended beyond genetics to include all the ideas, beliefs, customs etc. that help a society to survive and propagate itself. Now, we can take this and formalise it in some way so that we can discuss ethical questions rationally: Murder is bad because it reduces the net happiness in society - Utilitarianism Murder is bed because it breaks the sixth commandment - Judaism and Christianity (interesting that this only no. 6 on a list of 10: God knows his priorities) Ethics then becomes objective, given the rules. The meta-ethical explanation of evolution, broadly understood, as generating the various ethical systems is also objective. However, it is possible for someone at the bottom of the heap to go over the head of utilitarianism, evolution, even God and say: Why should murder be bad? I don't care about the greatest good for the greatest number, I don't care if the species dies out, and I think God is a bastard and will shout it from hell if sends me there for killing people for fun and profit. This is my own personal ethical belief, and you can't tell me I'm wrong! And the psychopath is right: no-one can actually fault him on a point of fact or a point of logic. The psychopath is wrong. He doesn't want to be murdered, but he wants to murder. His ethical rule is therefore inconsistent and not really ethical at all. Who says his ethical rule is inconsistent? If he made the claim do unto others as you would have others do unto you he would be inconsistent, but he makes no such claim. He doesn't get to choose about that.2+2=5 is wrong because it leads to inconsitistencies. No-one gets to wriggle out of that by saying mathematics doesn't need to be inconsistent. Billions of people have lived and died in societies where it is perfectly ethical and acceptable to kill inferior races or inferior species. They have lived in societies where it was believed to be. They may well have believed the Earth was flat, too. If they accept some version of the edict you have just elevated to a self-evident truth it would be do unto others as you would have them do unto you, unless they are foreigners, or taste good to eat, or worship different gods. Perfectly consistent, even if horrible. It is not consistent. The inconsistency has been built in with the unless clause.. In the *final* analysis, ethical beliefs are not a matter of fact or logic, and if it seems that they are then there is a hidden assumption somewhere. Everything starts with assumptions. The questions is whether they are correct. A lunatic could try defining 2+2=5 as valid, but he will soon run into inconsistencies. That is why we reject 2+2=5. Ethical rules must apply to everybody as a matter of definition. Definitions supply correct assumptions. So you think arguments about such matters as abortion, capital punishment and what sort of social welfare system we should have are just like arguments about mathematics or geology, and with enough research there should be universal agreement? They are a lot fuzzier. But economics is a lot fuzzier than mathematics. Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: computer pain
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Peter Jones writes: It is indisputable that morality varies in practice across communities. But the contention of ethical objectivism is not that everyone actually does hold to a single objective system of ethics; it is only that ethical questions can be resolved objectively in principle. The existence of an objective solution to any kind of problem is always compatible with the existence of people who, for whatever reason, do not subscribe. The roundness of the Earth is no less an objective fact for the existence of believers in the Flat Earth theory.(It is odd that the single most popular argument for ethical subjectivism has so little logical force). The Flat Earther is *wrong*. He claims that if you sail in a straight line you will eventually fall off the edge. But if you do sail in a straight line, you don't don't fall off the edge; lots of people have done it. The psychopath, on the other hand, merely claims that if he kills someone, he does not think it is a bad thing. That is no problem for objective ethics. The fact that someone thinks not-X is always comaptible with the objective truth of X. And indeed, he kills someone, and he does not think it is a bad thing. He is *not* wrong; there is no way you could even claim he is wrong, He is not wrong about what he thinks. He is wrong about what is true,. ethically. like the Flat Earther claiming that sailors have lied about circumnavigating the globe. You could argue that if everyone were a psychopath we would all be dead, and he might even agree with you that that would be the case, but then turn around and say, So what? Better dead than cissies! As Jamie Rose said, there were societies such as the Shakers who didn't mind if they died out and in fact did die out, and they are not usually considered immoral. That's not the issue. It's not negotiable whether ethics is supposed to lead to death and misery rather than life and happiness, any more than there is a valid form of economics which is designed to achieve abject poverty and societal breakdown in the shortest possible time. Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: computer pain
Stathis, your 'augmentded' ethical maxim is excellent, I could add some more 'except foe'-s to it. (lower class, cast, or wealth, - language, - gender, etc.) The last par, however, is prone to a more serious remark of mine: topics like you sampled are culture related prejudicial beief-items. Research cannot solve them, because research is also ADJUSTED TO THE CULTURE it serves. A valid medeval research on the number of angels on a pin-tip would not hold in today's belief-topic of curved space. (Curved angels?) Mey Christmas to you, too John On 12/21/06, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter Jones writes: Perhaps none of the participants in this thread really disagree. Let me see if I can summarise: Individuals and societies have arrived at ethical beliefs for a reason, whether that be evolution, what their parents taught them, or what it says in a book believed to be divinely inspired. Perhaps all of these reasons can be subsumed under evolution if that term can be extended beyond genetics to include all the ideas, beliefs, customs etc. that help a society to survive and propagate itself. Now, we can take this and formalise it in some way so that we can discuss ethical questions rationally: Murder is bad because it reduces the net happiness in society - Utilitarianism Murder is bed because it breaks the sixth commandment - Judaism and Christianity (interesting that this only no. 6 on a list of 10: God knows his priorities) Ethics then becomes objective, given the rules. The meta-ethical explanation of evolution, broadly understood, as generating the various ethical systems is also objective. However, it is possible for someone at the bottom of the heap to go over the head of utilitarianism, evolution, even God and say: Why should murder be bad? I don't care about the greatest good for the greatest number, I don't care if the species dies out, and I think God is a bastard and will shout it from hell if sends me there for killing people for fun and profit. This is my own personal ethical belief, and you can't tell me I'm wrong! And the psychopath is right: no-one can actually fault him on a point of fact or a point of logic. The psychopath is wrong. He doesn't want to be murdered, but he wants to murder. His ethical rule is therefore inconsistent and not really ethical at all. Who says his ethical rule is inconsistent? If he made the claim do unto others as you would have others do unto you he would be inconsistent, but he makes no such claim. Billions of people have lived and died in societies where it is perfectly ethical and acceptable to kill inferior races or inferior species. If they accept some version of the edict you have just elevated to a self-evident truth it would be do unto others as you would have them do unto you, unless they are foreigners, or taste good to eat, or worship different gods. Perfectly consistent, even if horrible. In the *final* analysis, ethical beliefs are not a matter of fact or logic, and if it seems that they are then there is a hidden assumption somewhere. Everything starts with assumptions. The questions is whether they are correct. A lunatic could try defining 2+2=5 as valid, but he will soon run into inconsistencies. That is why we reject 2+2=5. Ethical rules must apply to everybody as a matter of definition. Definitions supply correct assumptions. So you think arguments about such matters as abortion, capital punishment and what sort of social welfare system we should have are just like arguments about mathematics or geology, and with enough research there should be universal agreement? Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
