In the defense of ethics

[Ol' Dirty]

There are those on the board that will have us abandon our morals, defined as the "n. what is percieved to be universaly right (ant. immoral)," for the concept of nihilism, the belief that there is no ultimate truth to the universe; that all beliefs are subjective.

More power to them!

But I must interject on the side of reason. You see, ethics, or "(the study of) the values of a person or group of people" are a neccessary component of human thought. In ethics, we find what makes us who we are as people.

With ethics, there comes individual, collective purpose. There is a meaning, however indeffinate it may be, in peoples lives. There is reason to live. With ethics comes greatness . For what is a bullet without its mark? A craft without its port? A lover without its love? It is an empty shell. It is nothing; nay, less than nothing. Without it, there is nil.

I do not say that our beliefs are the "will of god," or the intentions of some divine creator. There is no destiny for us.

What there is is intention. There is spontaneuity and want, if not craving.

With ethics, there is both and ends and a means; an ends, in that we strive for what we think is right, what we think is ethical; more importantly, there is means: love, hate, hapiness, sadness, pain, pleasure, orgy, climax, sorrow, and a myriad of other emotions.

Those of you who would abandon this, be my guest.

But as rational, thinking human beings, does the destruction of purpose make sense?

Thank you for your time.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I think a lot of the anti-ethic people use hyperbole and rhetoric so much that it confuses the issue. I had a discussion with Rosa about it way back, I don't remember much but I do remember asking her if she considered raping and killing an infant a morally equivalent act to saving a life, and she said words to the effect of yes. I suspect it's more of an attack on the traditional conception of ethics, i.e. a set of rules to which we must adhere. But we need not do away with ethics as a whole, just the dogmatic or meaningless ones. (I know I'll be hit with a hail of "all ethics are meaningless", save your breath.)


I personally rather like act utilitarianism. How about we discuss that as a case-in-point?

-Alex

[apathy maybe]

Muigwithania, you make some interesting points. I will address them, before responding more generally to your ideas.


There are those on the board that will have us abandon our morals, defined as the "n. what is percieved to be universaly right (ant. immoral)," for the concept of nihilism, the belief that there is no ultimate truth to the universe; that all beliefs are subjective.
I agree that there is no ultimate truth, but I do not say abandon your ethics.


But I must interject on the side of reason. You see, ethics, or "(the study of) the values of a person or group of people" are a neccessary component of human thought. In ethics, we find what makes us who we are as people.
I am a bit suspicious of your "reason". I also tend to be suspicious of your idea that ethics makes us who we are. It sounds a bit metaphysical, which seems to me to be almost opposite to reason.


With ethics, there comes individual, collective purpose. There is a meaning, however indeffinate it may be, in peoples lives. There is reason to live. With ethics comes greatness . For what is a bullet without its mark? A craft without its port? A lover without its love? It is an empty shell. It is nothing; nay, less than nothing. Without it, there is nil.
No, ethics simply makes it easier for us all to get along. Lovely phrases, but meaningless. People can have purpose without ethics, societies can have purpose without ethics. Ethics are just 'rules' of conduct.


I do not say that our beliefs are the "will of god," or the intentions of some divine creator. There is no destiny for us. Good.


What there is is intention. There is spontaneuity and want, if not craving.

With ethics, there is both and ends and a means; an ends, in that we strive for what we think is right, what we think is ethical; more importantly, there is means: love, hate, hapiness, sadness, pain, pleasure, orgy, climax, sorrow, and a myriad of other emotions.

Those of you who would abandon this, be my guest.

But as rational, thinking human beings, does the destruction of purpose make sense?
I try to be rational. I tend to see my self as rational. I reject metaphysics, because it is not rational.

Love, hate, happiness, etc. All these things can exist with out ethics, they are biological functions.


However, I do not reject all ethics. Yes I reject the universality of moral codes, yes I reject the concept that there is an objective system of how to live. But that does not mean that I think we should all do what we want. I do have an ethical system, but it is a subjective system. It is a personal system. Yes it would be nice if everyone followed it, but I am not about to force them to.

To my mind, "the side of reason" is the side of reject the idea that the universe has a purpose. The side of reason is the side that supports subjective ethical codes. This is not to say that some codes are better then others, some are. Nor is it to say that we should not oppose ethical codes that conflict with our own, we should. But when we doing so, we should not try and appeal to some higher authority. We are the only authority we can appeal to.



Originally posted by BurnTheOliveTree
I think a lot of the anti-ethic people use hyperbole and rhetoric so much that it confuses the issue. I had a discussion with Rosa about it way back, I don't remember much but I do remember asking her if she considered raping and killing an infant a morally equivalent act to saving a life, and she said words to the effect of yes. I suspect it's more of an attack on the traditional conception of ethics, i.e. a set of rules to which we must adhere. But we need not do away with ethics as a whole, just the dogmatic or meaningless ones. (I know I'll be hit with a hail of "all ethics are meaningless", save your breath.)


I personally rather like act utilitarianism. How about we discuss that as a cae-in-point?

Yes we should attack the traditional ethical/moral systems, especially when they conflict with our own. Nor do I think that we should do away with all ethics, yes some nihilists do.

On your example, it seems to me that Rosa was using Utilitarianism in her answer.

Personally, while I do not think that there are 'natural rights' or universal ethics, we should act as if there were. But what they are, that is subjective (though my system is more correct).

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 11 2006, 04:57 AM








I found your response most intrigueing, Apathy, and would like to respond to it at length.


But I must interject on the side of reason. You see, ethics, or "(the study of) the values of a person or group of people" are a neccessary component of human thought. In ethics, we find what makes us who we are as people.


I am a bit suspicious of your "reason". I also tend to be suspicious of your idea that ethics makes us who we are. It sounds a bit metaphysical, which seems to me to be almost opposite to reason.

An interesting point, but I would tend to disagree.

Our value as people is, as with our opinions, subjective. There is no grand intention for our creation. We are most certainly not constructs, molded of the clay of the rivers of china, or automotons created of flesh and bone and sinew. We are (mostly) thinking, rationing, creative beings. Our creation is one of those wonderful farces in the univers.

Nihilist thought and theory puts forward the idea that morals are useless, as they are inherently false, as there is no judge to test them. Thusly, I assert that we make our own purpose, as there is not one already set down before us. I also assert that the main tool we should use (the "hammer and sickle" of purpose, if you will) is ethical thought, the values we hold.



abandon our morals, defined as the "n. what is percieved to be universaly right (ant. immoral)," for the concept of nihilism, the belief that there is no ultimate truth to the universe; that all beliefs are subjective.


I agree that there is no ultimate truth, but I do not say abandon your ethics.

One must differentiate between ethics and morals before one proceeds. Both are afformentioned (by me of course; feel free to make your own)


With ethics, there comes individual, collective purpose. There is a meaning, however indeffinate it may be, in peoples lives. There is reason to live. With ethics comes greatness . For what is a bullet without its mark? A craft without its port? A lover without its love? It is an empty shell. It is nothing; nay, less than nothing. Without it, there is nil.


No, ethics simply makes it easier for us all to get along. Lovely phrases, but meaningless. People can have purpose without ethics, societies can have purpose without ethics. Ethics are just 'rules' of conduct.

I see your point, but, once more, I must disagree.

Our values determine what is important to us. It defines us, in a sense. You see, no one has the exact same ethical code, just as no one has the exact same genetic makeup as someone else.

Say that on person values life, while another values power, or wealth. One is individualist, the other very much a social creature. One will most definately wish to defend what they value, such as their wealth, by wny means neccssery, even if it means that oters must die. The same goes with the more sociable creatures amoung us.


What there is is intention. There is spontaneuity and want, if not craving.

With ethics, there is both and ends and a means; an ends, in that we strive for what we think is right, what we think is ethical; more importantly, there is means: love, hate, hapiness, sadness, pain, pleasure, orgy, climax, sorrow, and a myriad of other emotions.

Those of you who would abandon this, be my guest.

But as rational, thinking human beings, does the destruction of purpose make sense?


Love, hate, happiness, etc. All these things can exist with out ethics, they are biological functions.

This down to a base question: can an animal feel emotion?

This is obvious to see: the human animal feels emotion, very intensely, might I add. Yet still, non-sentient animals, or beasts, are driven by sheer instinct, not emotion. This is what sets the human and the beast apart: emotion, and, in turn, ethics.


However, I do not reject all ethics. Yes I reject the universality of moral codes, yes I reject the concept that there is an objective system of how to live. But that does not mean that I think we should all do what we want. I do have an ethical system, but it is a subjective system. It is a personal system. Yes it would be nice if everyone followed it, but I am not about to force them to.

To my mind, "the side of reason" is the side of reject the idea that the universe has a purpose. The side of reason is the side that supports subjective ethical codes. This is not to say that some codes are better then others, some are. Nor is it to say that we should not oppose ethical codes that conflict with our own, we should. But when we doing so, we should not try and appeal to some higher authority. We are the only authority we can appeal to.

We are apparently on the same side on this; we both beleive in subjective ethics and not morals. I beleive we simply put our ethics at different leves of importance, and that is fine.

[apathy maybe]

Our value as people is, as with our opinions, subjective. There is no grand intention for our creation. We are most certainly not constructs, molded of the clay of the rivers of china, or automotons created of flesh and bone and sinew. We are (mostly) thinking, rationing, creative beings. Our creation is one of those wonderful farces in the univers.

Nihilist thought and theory puts forward the idea that morals are useless, as they are inherently false, as there is no judge to test them. Thusly, I assert that we make our own purpose, as there is not one already set down before us. I also assert that the main tool we should use (the "hammer and sickle" of purpose, if you will) is ethical thought, the values we hold.
I agree, I think that nihilistic thought is compatible with ethical thought. It is possible to be nihilistic and have a set of ethics.


One must differentiate between ethics and morals before one proceeds. Both are afformentioned (by me of course; feel free to make your own)With all these ethics threads around ... I was getting confused.
In this < http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292186526 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57222&view=findpost&p=1292186526) > thread I have differentiated between morals and ethics.


This down to a base question: can an animal feel emotion?Yes... After all we are animals.


This is obvious to see: the human animal feels emotion, very intensely, might I add. Yet still, non-sentient animals, or beasts, are driven by sheer instinct, not emotion. This is what sets the human and the beast apart: emotion, and, in turn, ethics.I disagree, animals can feel emotion, not just humans either. Humans are just another type of animal, more sophisticated in some ways, less so in others. The difference is in degree not kind.
Any materialist should be able to see this. And people who do not, well they are making themselves special, the universe does not care.

(Here is a very interesting quote from < http://www.kenanmalik.com/debates/ryder_guardian.html >
"Richard Ryder: The strongest reason why I&#39;m opposed to at least unnecessary testing on animals is that I don&#39;t really see that the species difference makes any moral difference, any more than differences in race, class or gender. Speciesism is a prejudice against other species of sentient being merely on the grounds of their species difference. I see speciesism as being just as much a mistake as racism. Just as racism attaches a lot of moral importance to racial differences, so speciesism attaches a lot of moral importance to species differences. I think it&#39;s very hard to find a rational explanation of why this should be, bearing in mind that there&#39;s a lot of very good scientific evidence that the other species can suffer pain and distress in a similar sort of way that we do."
I am obviously more sympathetic towards Ryder then the other person, and I think that Ryder has a more rational and materialistic position.)


We are apparently on the same side on this; we both beleive in subjective ethics and not morals. I beleive we simply put our ethics at different leves of importance, and that is fine. Yes and no. I put my ethics quite high, I just accept that they might not be the best.

[apathy maybe]

Here also is another thread where I have put my position on nihilism < http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55122 >, this post < http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292185410 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55122&view=findpost&p=1292185410) > says it.