IS EVIL REAL? OR, LIKE GOD, A HUMAN INVENTION?

[jakelafort]

I am not sure what you are saying Simon.

Are you disagreeing with me and if so how?

[Unseen]

jakelafort wrote:

What of ethics? Are ethics simply matters of opinion in which acts can never be judged? Are ethics necessarily a reflection of one’s tribe or culture?

You just said it yourself. Ethical statements are judgments (“I adjudge so and so to be wrong”) and thus are mere opinions or expressions of attitudes. Where do you imagine you get the values that give you those opinions and attitudes?

• This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Unseen.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Unseen.

[jakelafort]

Yes, Unseen, ethics are judgments.   Judgments subsume matters such as who we date, who we befriend,  how we spend our time,  whether a horse’s odds are a true reflection of the probabilities.

You say judgments are opinion.  Agreed.  But the way you characterize opinions with a seeming derision.  Mere? Why mere.  One’s judgment is the culmination of our magnificent brains and the serpentine and improbable path that lead us to be us.

Further you say ethics are  expressions of attitudes.  If by that you mean to convey the idea that attitudes are simply feelings you are mistaken-IN YOUR JUDGMENT!

Ethics is a matter of applied reason.  Feelings may be associated with ethics but feelings are not seminal to their genesis.

 

[Davis]

jakelafort wrote:

Ethics is a matter of applied reason.

If only that were mostly so Jake. If only. This is true when we are in the realm of applied ethics, legal debates and enlightened discussion. However, ethics all to often by-pass anything we’d recognize as reason. Consider this: in a large amount of countries…the most intellectual and prestigious and prized ethicists…are sharia law interpreters. Their underlying axiom may be grossly flawed, but once God’s elementary laws are established…they use stunning logical precision to find rules that deal with ordinary problems with applied reason…frequently resulting in incredible cruelty. And the Sharia-ists aren’t alone. Reason is well applied, and yet the results, mostly due to some fundamental premises…are obscene. I agree with a lot of what you say Jake, but there is fundamentally more to it than just applied reason, and it is still in the realm of opinion. We are lucky to live in countries where those opinions have us living sufferable lives.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Davis.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Davis.

[jakelafort]

Davis, to give an addendum to my most recent reply to Unseen,  those are MERE opinions.  I don’t consider it ever ethical (unless it is incidental…for example formulations of the golden rule) if it is a result of ideology, mythology or superstition. Those opinions are delivered to the believer by fiat and rely on authority, not reason.

So i distinguish the two.

[Davis]

jakelafort wrote:

So i distinguish the two.

Yes. Got it!

[Simon Paynton]

@jakelafort – I was agreeing with you.  There are factual aspects of an ethical judgement.  First there’s the action itself, which is is a given fact.  Then there are judgements of how the action fits various ethical criteria – how did it score on fairness, reciprocity, unconditional harm, whatever.  If we understand what these are about, we are well placed to make judgements concerning this.

M E Thomas (“Confessions of a Sociopath”) distinguishes between descriptive and normative judgements, and I suppose these would be normative judgements.

[Simon Paynton]

@unseen – “Where do you imagine you get the values that give you those opinions and attitudes?”

– personal thriving (balanced with the thriving of others).

– cultural norms (those “twisting gardens of rules”).

[Simon Paynton]

I also agree with @davis – if you don’t have the right starting premises, the whole thing’s fucked.

[Unseen]

Simon Paynton wrote:

M E Thomas (“Confessions of a Sociopath”) distinguishes between descriptive and normative judgements, and I suppose these would be normative judgements.

Doesn’t matter. Anytime you adjudge something, you’re saying “This is what I think” not “This is what I know.” The only fact involved is an unshareable state of mind, known only to you, not a state of affairs in the external world.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Unseen.

[Simon Paynton]

@unseen – “The only fact involved is an unshareable state of mind, known only to you, not a state of affairs in the external world.”

– yes, but there is the fact of the act itself, together with the ethical concepts against which it is measured.

[Unseen]

Simon Paynton wrote:

there is the fact of the act itself, together with the ethical concepts against which it is measured.

Those ethical concepts are artifactual, not built into reality.

[jakelafort]

Unseen, do you differentiate between human concepts? Are all concepts artifactual?

If not how is an ethical concept to be distinguished from a scientific concept,  a legal concept, a linguistic concept?

[Simon Paynton]

@unseen – “Those ethical concepts are artifactual, not built into reality.”

– they’re scientific concepts.  Do you not agree with the concept of concepts?  Do you think that they’re not a thing?  How do you account for mathematics?

[Simon Paynton]

This is an ethical concept (“Perfect Compassion”).  We can make a judgement, for a given action, whether the actor was only thinking of themselves, or of all those affected, or somewhere in between.  We can evaluate the action in the light of this concept.

[Author]

Posts