Ethics = completely pointless

[edyb123]

What does ethics achieve?

If you are religious then (usually) your morality is laid down by a God. It is black and white, do this, don't do that. No discussion needed.

If you are not religious then morality is subjective.. and so doesn't have any real meaning. Asking an ethical question without religion is asking a question based on terms with no logic.

Q: Is it wrong to murder?

A: If you are a christian yes, if you are an atheist then wrong has no context. If you are a Christian then do not murder. If you are an atheist then it's up to you.

Without religion every question is subjective. An answer can't be given without circumstances. At the end of the day there is no right and wrong and a person must just choose what is most beneficial to them... whether it be in a selfish manner of selfless.

Questions like "Should i cheat on my gf blah blah" are so mundane.. if you ask a priest he will say no.. anyone elses opinion is just that.. personal opinion. It is neither wrong or right to cheat on your gf.. if happiness is your goal then weigh up what will make you happier. If loyalty is your goal then weigh up what is more loyal.

Questions only make sense in relation to something else.

Murder is wrong - nonsense
Murder of your best friend is not a very good idea because he is your friend and you like him - logic

[LaceyFan]

Ooh, can I play?

I think ethics is more like heartless or uhmm... hearted.
Murder, if you're ethically sound, would make you feel bad
Murder, if you're heartless, would make you feel nothing

It's not so much about right and wrong. It's about how you should be.
Empathy might help. You could say it's 'wrong' to ruin someone else's life, by killing it or stealing from it, or whatever. You could say it's 'right' to not hurt them.

So the question 'Should I cheat on my girlfriend' can be seen as 'Should I hurt my girlfriend by boning other chicks' (empathy) or 'Will cheating on my girlfriend make me feel bad'

Ethically, don't do it because you'd feel bad or you care. Unethically, do it because you don't care and your Jr. wants a change of pace.

Unless you have no ethics and you just don't care about anyone

Ethics are a 'guideline' If everyone followed em, we'd be better off.

[Hoatzin]

If you are not religious then morality is subjective.. and so doesn't have any real meaning. Asking an ethical question without religion is asking a question based on terms with no logic.

That's not true. Religious and non-religious people are both exposed to and live within moral codes that are mutually established by the society they live in.

[edyb123]

That's not true. Religious and non-religious people are both exposed to and live within moral codes that are mutually established by the society they live in.

Nope. Religious people live by (what they think to be) objective moral codes.

Non-religious people live by non-objective law that everyone has agreed to abide by.

Social law has nothing to do with what is wrong and right it is to do with mutual respect of what individuals want.

So ethical consideration is meaningless... because it concerns objective morality.. something which the law of society doesn't deal with.

We can either discuss actions in regard to the law of a society or to religious objective morality.

[Hoatzin]

Nope. Religious people live by (what they think to be) objective moral codes.

Not really. Most religious people I've met pick and choose which religious laws they follow.

Social law has nothing to do with what is wrong and right it is to do with mutual respect of what individuals want.

How is that different?

So ethical consideration is meaningless... because it concerns objective morality.. something which the law of society doesn't deal with.

We can either discuss actions in regard to the law of a society or to religious objective morality.

Well, as I understood it, ethics is an attempt to construct a non-religious objective morality, or at least, objective compared to personal subjective moralities.

[edyb123]

I think ethics is more like heartless or uhmm... hearted.
Murder, if you're ethically sound, would make you feel bad

You're making an assumption that everyone who murders is not normal or that they don't want to murder and don't like it.

Murder, if you're heartless, would make you feel nothing

What does heartless mean? I'm sure murderers have huge motives for doing what they do, otherwise why would they do it. Soldiers murder everyday.

It's not so much about right and wrong. It's about how you should be.


That's the same thing. If someone is saying how you should be they are saying what is right and wrong.

Empathy might help.

If someone doesn't feel empathy then how can anyone expect them to relate to it?

You could say it's 'wrong' to ruin someone else's life, by killing it or stealing from it, or whatever. You could say it's 'right' to not hurt them.

You could do... but it would lack any meaning. Just as i could say it is wrong to eat apples on a Tuesday.

So the question 'Should I cheat on my girlfriend' can be seen as 'Should I hurt my girlfriend by boning other chicks' (empathy) or 'Will cheating on my girlfriend make me feel bad'

People do things for reasons. If cheating didn't offer anyone any pleasure or benefit then why would they do it? You could see it as "I don't care enough about my girlfriend to not find fun elsewhere".... or you could see it as "I love my girlfriend and it would hurt me too much to see her upset". Either one is in favour of the cheater.

Ethically, don't do it because you'd feel bad or you care. Unethically, do it because you don't care and your Jr. wants a change of pace.

What?


Unless you have no ethics and you just don't care about anyone

You don't have to believe in man made morality to care about people.

Ethics are a 'guideline' If everyone followed em, we'd be better off.

Ethics aren't set in stone. Some peoples ethics say it's okay to beat their wives.... some say it is not okay.

[edyb123]

Not really. Most religious people I've met pick and choose which religious laws they follow.

Well that's ridiculous. If something is the word of God why would someone think that some morals are real and some false. People who pick and choose religious morals are just suiting themselves and completely fail to claim they are truly religious.

How is that different?

Morality is objective.

Murder is wrong = objective moral
Murder is wrong within our society = mutual agreement

Morality implies that the law is applicable anywhere in the universe.
Law within a society does not claim to declare "right" and "wrong" it just enforces the wishes of the people. But peoples wishes are different all over the world.
It may be okay to kill in some societies.

Well, as I understood it, ethics is an attempt to construct a non-religious objective morality, or at least, objective compared to personal subjective moralities.

Yes that is what ethics attempts to do and that is why it is pointless.

You cannot have objective morality outside of religion because there is nowhere to obtain the knowledge of "right" and "wrong" from. Everything is just the opinion of an individual or group of individuals that hold no more truth than any other.

I have no problem with law within society... but to claim an objective morality.. and there for use "ethics" is pointless.

[Hoatzin]

Well that's ridiculous. If something is the word of God why would someone think that some morals are real and some false. People who pick and choose religious morals are just suiting themselves and completely fail to claim they are truly religious.

Well I can't claim to know, but I think it would be pretty stupid of you to just declare that religious people are a certain way and dismiss the millions of religious people who don't fit a definition that suits your argument.

Morality is objective.

Murder is wrong = objective moral
Murder is wrong within our society = mutual agreement

Morality implies that the law is applicable anywhere in the universe.
Law within a society does not claim to declare "right" and "wrong" it just enforces the wishes of the people. But peoples wishes are different all over the world.
It may be okay to kill in some societies.

So what? The fact that morality isn't the same everywhere does NOT mean that everyone has a choice of morality. It's objective to them, they haven't made it up as their own code to live by.

By and large though, people's wishes are pretty similar. Look as Maslow's hierarchy of needs, for example. There are needs or values that derive from biology and psychology as it relates to the biological, and these rarely vary from one society to the next.

So what if there's no god behind it? To most of us, our bodies are a lot more precious than the approval of a supernatural being. I think that's possibly true of a lot of religious people as well as the non-religious; they'll devote their lives to God, but with some notable exceptions, very few become martyrs to Him. So clearly their lives are more important in the end.

Yes that is what ethics attempts to do and that is why it is pointless.

You cannot have objective morality outside of religion because there is nowhere to obtain the knowledge of "right" and "wrong" from. Everything is just the opinion of an individual or group of individuals that hold no more truth than any other.

I have no problem with law within society... but to claim an objective morality.. and there for use "ethics" is pointless.

I don't see how that makes it pointless at all. If there is no objective right and wrong, it makes sense that we have to make one up.

I think you're wrong if you believe that the non-religious don't have objective right and wrong (objective to them, anyway). People grow up in a culture and that is where their values come from. It's pointless to simplify it the way that you have.

Ethics is simply about trying to create a set of widely and mutually agreed values - really basic ones - that it would be unreasonable for one to disagree with. For that reason, while it is an attempt to create an objective right and wrong, there is room for debate, so clearly it is also flexible and subjective.

Really, I can't work out what point you're trying to make. There's a massive leap from ethics not being the absolute word of some god to ethics being pointless and you're not giving us anything to bridge the gap with.

[Hoatzin]

As for where we obtain "knowledge of right and wrong", I think that much is pretty obvious. Trial and error, cause and consequence, these are all things that we've used to establish truths and theories. Over the centuries we've learned how to be nice to each other. I don't believe that this is something innate to us as people, so I would say that we clearly can acquire a sense of right and wrong through experience and from experiences handed down from the previous generations. I'd say that that's where most of our ethical principles come from.

[Hoatzin]

Oh, and while I'm here:

Murder is wrong - nonsense
Murder of your best friend is not a very good idea because he is your friend and you like him - logic

OK, so why is murder of someone who is not your friend, and whose death would not negatively impact you in any way still wrong? Because it must be regarded as wrong by the majority of people, otherwise there'd be a lot more murders!

[edyb123]

A simple answer would be (if you aren't familiar with them already) for you to check out Existentialism, Nihilism, Relativism, Subjectivism etc.

Here is my response though:

Well I can't claim to know, but I think it would be pretty stupid of you to just declare that religious people are a certain way and dismiss the millions of religious people who don't fit a definition that suits your argument.

No i mean.. of course people can have different values and morals from religion.. but for someone to say "i am a Christian and i stand by the bible" and then to go to war and kill people.. even though it clearly states though shalt not murder... is ridiculous... they change the interpretation to suit their own human needs.

So what? The fact that morality isn't the same everywhere does NOT mean that everyone has a choice of morality. It's objective to them, they haven't made it up as their own code to live by.

Objectivity means that the morals hold true to everyone in the world. Either the "objective morals" hold true to everyone and everything or they are subjective.
Yes they have made it up as their own moral code to live by as you have said here:

"Ethics is simply about trying to create a set of widely and mutually agreed values - really basic ones - that it would be unreasonable for one to disagree with."

By and large though, people's wishes are pretty similar. Look as Maslow's hierarchy of needs, for example. There are needs or values that derive from biology and psychology as it relates to the biological, and these rarely vary from one society to the next.

All that confirms is that we are similar beings. We are all humans.. big deal. Just because we have the same needs doesn't mean there is an objective morality. Maybe you don't have the right understanding of objective?

So what if there's no god behind it? To most of us, our bodies are a lot more precious than the approval of a supernatural being. I think that's possibly true of a lot of religious people as well as the non-religious; they'll devote their lives to God, but with some notable exceptions, very few become martyrs to Him. So clearly their lives are more important in the end.

Yes we all treasure our bodies but what has that got to do with morality. Just because someone else doesn't want to die doesn't mean we shoudln't kill them (i wouldn't do it myself.. but it is not because of objective morality).

Just because we can empathise with other humans doesn't mean we shouldn't enflict on them what we don't like.

I don't see how that makes it pointless at all. If there is no objective right and wrong, it makes sense that we have to make one up.

Making morality up makes subjective morality. Objective morality doesn't exist. If you and another person in.. say africa both decided to "make" objective morality and they were different then how would that work? If humans make it, it is subjective... because one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

I think you're wrong if you believe that the non-religious don't have objective right and wrong (objective to them, anyway). People grow up in a culture and that is where their values come from. It's pointless to simplify it the way that you have.

Yes it is objective to them... but only to them.. the objection is an illusion. If two societies have different moralities then people grow up believeing different things so how is morality objective? That is completely subjective.

For morality to be objective it has to apply to everyone. If everyone is coming up with different moralities how can we know that any of them are the "true" ones? It is impossible without God.

Ethics is simply about trying to create a set of widely and mutually agreed values - really basic ones - that it would be unreasonable for one to disagree with.

Yes.. that's called a law and they are subjective... accept ethics deals with morality so it is usually utilitarianist governments that makes laws.

For that reason, while it is an attempt to create an objective right and wrong, there is room for debate, so clearly it is also flexible and subjective.

It is impossible for morality to be both objective and subjective.

I think we have different views on what objectivity is.

I agree that society will, can and does benefit from creating laws that govern society... perhaps the whole of the world one day.. but they do not hold anything universal in a higher sense.. they could be any kind of laws as long as its what everyone wants the most.

Really, I can't work out what point you're trying to make. There's a massive leap from ethics not being the absolute word of some god to ethics being pointless and you're not giving us anything to bridge the gap with.

If ethics in your mind equals law making then i agree ethics is important. But if it equals determining what is "good" or "bad" then it is pointless.

Tell me... if there is no God where on earth can you obtain meaning from?

Majority? - The majority means nothing.. just a larger group of people. The Nazis were a majority in Germany.. where they "right"?

Individuals - Why is one opniion anymore truthfull than another?

Oh wait.. u have answered me:

As for where we obtain "knowledge of right and wrong", I think that much is pretty obvious. Trial and error, cause and consequence, these are all things that we've used to establish truths and theories.

First of all, scientific theories are empirical experiments. We can try to understand science through physical tests.. but science can't explain morality it just describes the world. Morality has never been proven.

Secondly, even science does and can come under scrutiny. Scientific theories are often disproved.

Over the centuries we've learned how to be nice to each other. I don't believe that this is something innate to us as people, so I would say that we clearly can acquire a sense of right and wrong through experience and from experiences handed down from the previous generations. I'd say that that's where most of our ethical principles come from.

It is not a sense of right and wrong it is a sense of how to keep friends and family. It is subjective. I think it's just your understanding of objectivity.

Yes we can apply a moral to the whole world i.e. "do not kill" so it is then a widely accepted subjective moral.. or law. But what of the people that want to kill? Are they "wrong" just because they are in the minority? Why would you say so?

They are not "wrong" because there is no such thing as wrong and right... they are just unlucky that they landed in the minority of people.

OK, so why is murder of someone who is not your friend, and whose death would not negatively impact you in any way still wrong? Because it must be regarded as wrong by the majority of people, otherwise there'd be a lot more murders!

Terrible logic.. so majority = morality?
Just because the majority of people are happy doesn't mean that what they do or agree on is objective morality.

Sorry if i sound pissy i'm tired and rushing this.

[Hoatzin]

Yes we all treasure our bodies but what has that got to do with morality. Just because someone else doesn't want to die doesn't mean we shoudln't kill them (i wouldn't do it myself.. but it is not because of objective morality).

Just because we can empathise with other humans doesn't mean we shouldn't enflict on them what we don't like.

Well I believe the standard is "do as you would be done by", and while religions do teach this, I'd argue that the fact that just about every religion teaches this would suggest that it goes deeper in the human consciousness, that it's not just something someone decided was objectively true one day but that it's something people believe because they understand it.


Yes it is objective to them... but only to them.. the objection is an illusion. If two societies have different moralities then people grow up believeing different things so how is morality objective? That is completely subjective.

No, I would not agree that it is completely subjective, for the reasons that I've already stated.

For morality to be objective it has to apply to everyone. If everyone is coming up with different moralities how can we know that any of them are the "true" ones? It is impossible without God.

How is morality imparted by religion any more "true" or "objective" than morality imparted by society or social forces? Answer: IT ISN'T. If you're arguing that ethics is pointless because it isn't consistent from one society to the next, I'd have to agree that it isn't consistent. But the same is true of religious truth, so I really don't see why you're even going via God on this one. Different denominations of the same religion will have different rules, and people will rarely observe a religious rule that goes heavily against their own instincts. Unless you have the idea that religion is about "sheeple" mindlessly following whatever is handed down to them (which is obviously ridiculous), I don't see how religion is any different from society in relation to your argument.


Yes we can apply a moral to the whole world i.e. "do not kill" so it is then a widely accepted subjective moral.. or law. But what of the people that want to kill? Are they "wrong" just because they are in the minority? Why would you say so?

They are not "wrong" because there is no such thing as wrong and right... they are just unlucky that they landed in the minority of people.

They are wrong by the artificial but well-rooted decree that killing is wrong, based on the widely understood notion that one should not do to others what one would not be willing to let others do to them. This is why most people can support voluntary euthanasia without supporting all killing ever.

So no, they're not wrong "just because they are in a minority". You could make that argument about someone who is vilified for actions that do not adversely affect the lives of others, but by trying to make this extreme and emotive argument relating to something like killing people, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

You're obviously very good at manipulating debate though: "Are they "wrong" just because they are in the minority? Why would you say so?" is up there with "when did you stop beating your wife?" :D

Terrible logic.. so majority = morality?
Just because the majority of people are happy doesn't mean that what they do or agree on is objective morality.

So you're arguing that people don't kill each other because they all happen to be really happy? And your evidence of this will no doubt be that they must be happy because they don't kill each other, yes?

What I can't understand, throughout all of this, is why you are arguing that, because ethics isn't objective, it is pointless. I'm not aware that ethics claims to be objective truth, at all. It is about mutual acceptance of certain values, so long as those values are supportable. If you can argue, for example, that there is strong grounds for a belief like "do as you would be done by" to be overturned, I'd like to hear it.

But you are simply asserting that it is pointless. Now, I would ask you at this point to explain: how can you argue that this or anything else is "pointless" when there is no objective truth to tell you what has a point? What you are doing is no different from an ethicist making an argument that someone is right or wrong. They use common points of reference to make their case, they don't simply assert and invoke Logic as a god (like so many do).

This argument simply makes no sense. What you're saying is that ethics is pointless because it refers to non-objective ideas like "right" and "wrong", while referring to non-objective ideas such as "worthwhile" and "pointless". Unless you have some notion of what "the point" is - and because of the argument you're making it has to be an objective one - you can't argue that something is pointless. And again, if you know what "the point" is, I'd like to hear it.

[Hoatzin]

If ethics in your mind equals law making then i agree ethics is important. But if it equals determining what is "good" or "bad" then it is pointless.

What's the point in making a law against something you don't think is "bad"? In most societies, there is a mass consensus over what is right or wrong. That is why, just as scientific theories are overturned, so are laws that become unpopular. This is dynamic social truth. It's not "right" or "wrong", neither is it "worthwhile" or "pointless". It is simply something that exists in societies of people. You can ignore it or claim that it doesn't exist just because it's not "objective". But doing so would make you a terrible politician.

The social forces that sculpt these laws are any less "real" or worthy of our awareness and consideration just for being subjective (and we really need a better word for this; there is a world of difference between subjectivity and Gustav LeBon's "crowd psychology", in which the will of the individual is frequently lost). Ethics is about life and consciousness, not about physics or chemical reactions. Yes, the two cross over, but the key difference in this context is that, while science should be unemotional, ethics should be emotional. Ethics is not about saying that something should or shouldn't be done because of some objective truth, so it's absurd to argue as if it thinks that it is and that you are somehow disproving this.


I agree that society will, can and does benefit from creating laws that govern society... perhaps the whole of the world one day.. but they do not hold anything universal in a higher sense.. they could be any kind of laws as long as its what everyone wants the most.

Actually, ethics exists to regulate this. In the absence of ethics, anything that is popular could become "moral" or legal. We have ethical codes because, as you say, there is a house of cards that prevents us from fully realising that, for example, we outnumber the police massively and thus they should not represent a threat to our liberty. Why shouldn't you kill someone if they would not be missed?

Why shouldn't you do whatever you want? If the only argument against it is that the consequences will be bad, then if you believe that are still worth it, why not? We shouldn't beat people up because they might beat us up back. But what if we're really really strong and can handle anyone who tries to beat us up? Without ethics, there is no reason for us not to do whatever we want. You can see this in action in global politics all the time. Nations invade other nations not because they think there would be no negative consequences, but simply because those negative consequences are seen to be worth putting up with.

So yes, basically ethics is trying to establish a "code of conduct" that doesn't depend on people's capacity for empathy. Whether that has anything to do with "objective truth" or not, I think you're a fool if you declare it "pointless".

[edyb123]

Ok. So i think perhaps the title was not a particularly good one.

- I don't think that application of objective morality makes sense or can be done.
- I don't think that objective morality even exists.
- I think ethics relates to decisions made by people based on objective morality.
- I think people should (and do without realising) make decisions based on personal gain and benefit. This can involve helping others.. but it is then through the effect giving has on the giver that benefits them.
- I don't think people make generally selfless acts.. for instance "do unto others as you would like done to you" involves mutual respect.. not selfless action.
- In this respect ethics has no meaning because actions are (or should be) based on benefit, not some vague moral code pulled out of the air.
- Perhaps you will claim that by saying what "should" be done i am using ethics. I only use "should" in relation to having a functional society. I don't think it is universally necessary to ever to anything. But in terms of the most logical and happy way to spend ones days, i would argue that people "should" act on things beside objective morality if that is what they want.

I will also note that this is not a redundant argument. The position you are arguing from is one of ancient Greek philosophy.. natural law etc. I am standing by the Postmodern world of Existentialism that deals with creating our own reasons to live. Existentialists (a modern and well supported argument) claims that existence precedes essence... in other words we are born into the world before we have reason to be here or the universe has any morality or meaning. Objective morality is dependent on always existing whether or not we are here. Objective morality would exist from the beginning to the end of the universe if at all. Existentialism implies that we are all completely free and if we are going to have a moral code we must create it ourselves, BUT this code cannot be objective because we have created it.

You are saying that since the vast majority of humans have a "general sense" of what is wrong and right and people seem to adhere to it around the world it must therefore be objective.

Firstly, humans all have one thing in common; We have emotion. We all feel pain.. so regardless of how many do.. it is only natural that we stay away from pain and hurt, murder, rape, fights blah blah. It is not any in-built consciousness that tells us "pain is bad" it is simply the fact that most people don't like pain. If we had no emotion or pain then killing would be irrelevant to us. It is the human condition that gives humans all around the world similar laws. It is the fact that we all have emotion not that fact that we have any sense of a "higher" wrong and right.

Secondly, majority opinion can never justify anything as being objective. People are guided by power, sense of belonging, revolution, greed etc.. any kind of power has the chance to rule the world.. or the majority of it.

If the majority of the world (lets say Europe Asia and America) had a ritual by law every Christmas where they sacrificed their oldest relative to the "Hamburger God" then you would be saying.. no that is wrong because murder is wrong. But they are a majority. What about the few people who refuse to sacrifice anyone on Christmas? How are they different from the people in our world that do murder? They are both the minority.. and there is no way to claim they are going against an objective moral code.. because you can't obtain it from anywhere, least of all (as shown above) majority opinion.

I agree that morality imparted by religion isn't any more true than it being imparted by society, that is because their is no God. When i refer to having to obtain your morals from God or nowhere.. i simply mean that at least religious people are thinking logically about morals. If there really was an all powerful and knowing God then of course it would make sense to follow what he says about morality. Atheists however don't have a basis from which to obtain the morality. Christians sometimes agree.. as i have heard many arguments from them saying that morality can't exist without a God.

Also, lets say that there is objective morality without God. Where is the deterrent for people who don't share the same beliefs as most people to not go against the objective morality? With God.. people have the motive of going to heaven.. and the deterrent of going to hell. If there is no heaven and hell.. and someone genuinely enjoys going against what most people follow as objective morality.. then why would or should they stop? There is no punishment... so do they mean anything if they really do exist?


Well I believe the standard is "do as you would be done by", and while religions do teach this, I'd argue that the fact that just about every religion teaches this would suggest that it goes deeper in the human consciousness, that it's not just something someone decided was objectively true one day but that it's something people believe because they understand it.

There is no empirical evidence to show that it is inherent in the human consciousness. As with God, belief should not exist until their is proof.
"Do as you would be done by" is the most basic rule of society.. which is perhaps why it appears everywhere. People like to cooperate and avoid killing each other.. hence the mutual agreement of treating others how you would like to be treated is popular. Also, religious people tend to pass down teachings without even considering them.. not only do most religions teach "do as you would be done by" they also teach of heaven.. hell.. god.. punishment.. sin... does that mean all those things are probably true and built into the human mind as well? Or does it mean that religion is very good at indoctrination?

Different denominations of the same religion will have different rules, and people will rarely observe a religious rule that goes heavily against their own instincts.

If they ignore a religious rule that goes against their own instincts then they are living for themselves and not objectivity. Just as some crazy people feel the need to kill or rape w/e and ignore societies laws. Why do people pick and choose if the supposed "oh so definitive and truthful" objective laws are there for a reason? Surely objective laws are bound to be hard to follow.. they usually are e.g. don't be jealous of your neighbours possessions. If you think objective morality comes from inate consciosness and people naturally do what is "right" then how do you explain the thousands/millions that naturally choose differently?

Unless you have the idea that religion is about "sheeple" mindlessly following whatever is handed down to them (which is obviously ridiculous), I don't see how religion is any different from society in relation to your argument.

You're kidding me right? Although i don't adhere to the "fuck religious sheeple mannn!" kinda of thing.. it is plainly obvious that many, many religious people don't think twice about their beliefs. I have met a number of them. There are millions in America. I don't deny that people in society are particularly diferent to reliigous people. I don't think society is perfect.

They are wrong by the artificial but well-rooted decree that killing is wrong, based on the widely understood notion that one should not do to others what one would not be willing to let others do to them. This is why most people can support voluntary euthanasia without supporting all killing ever.

If it is artificial then they are not wrong in any sense more than that they went against the opinions of lots of people. How can people say "killing is wrong" but support euthanasia? Don't you mean they say "killins is wrong, unless they want to die"... oh and "unless we are at war... and if they try to knife me in the street... and maybe if i was really really angry with them... oh and maybe if i was a contract hitman.. oh and also if i had to choose between the life of my daughter and a random person."
Decision is relative to every situation.. people make choices to benefit themselves in relation to a situation.. NOT to a universal law that is decided before they even get into a situation.

You're obviously very good at manipulating debate though: "Are they "wrong" just because they are in the minority? Why would you say so?" is up there with "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Everything i say i agree with.. im not trying to twist things. The implication of an example shouldn't effect debate.

What I can't understand, throughout all of this, is why you are arguing that, because ethics isn't objective, it is pointless. I'm not aware that ethics claims to be objective truth, at all. It is about mutual acceptance of certain values, so long as those values are supportable.

Ethics implies the use of morality on acts within society. Objective morality does not exist.. therefore only subjective morality can be applied. But having a debate about subjective morality will never reach any conclusions besides "more people agree with this.. so thats how its gonna be". In that respect asking an ethical question can be done.. but means nothing of relevance.

If you can argue, for example, that there is strong grounds for a belief like "do as you would be done by" to be overturned, I'd like to hear it.

Well.. "do as you would be done by" only helps other people. As is shown time and time again all over the world.. people can benefit from not "doing as you would be done by" and if they do not feel guilty about it.. then why would they stop? Bussiness men do it.. theifs do it.. friends do it.. politicians do it... countries do it..
Sometimes there is not enough guilt to be had at the expense of someone else for people to give a damn about.
Why do wars take place? People are not interested in respecting others.. they look after themselves... with exceptions of course.
"do as you would be done by" does help society fucntion.. but it means nothing objectively.

Now, I would ask you at this point to explain: how can you argue that this or anything else is "pointless" when there is no objective truth to tell you what has a point? What you are doing is no different from an ethicist making an argument that someone is right or wrong. They use common points of reference to make their case, they don't simply assert and invoke Logic as a god (like so many do).

This argument simply makes no sense. What you're saying is that ethics is pointless because it refers to non-objective ideas like "right" and "wrong", while referring to non-objective ideas such as "worthwhile" and "pointless". Unless you have some notion of what "the point" is - and because of the argument you're making it has to be an objective one - you can't argue that something is pointless. And again, if you know what "the point" is, I'd like to hear it.

I simply claim that there is no point. Nothing has a point. We can all choose to do what we want how we want and when we want.. but nothing has a reason. Perhaps people like pleasure? it has no point but that doesn't mean it can't be experienced. I'm not saying that what you're saying is wrong and that something else is right.. i'm saying that to claim "rightness" of anything is false. Sure you can imply objective morality.. and it would be just as meaningless as not implying it.. but some people have goals i.e. happiness and the quickest route to this is to avoid objective things.

What we are discussing is the existential/nihilisitic life of absurdism.. which is a valid claim. Nothing means anything. I have to use language to explain that "right" and "wrong" are pointless.. but i'm not implying i have "the point"... that is life for you... there is no point. We just exist and do what we want..

This is why the non-existence of God is so scary to some people. A life without God automatically implies a life without morality, meaning, reason, purpose or direction. We must just live for livings sake... or die if you decide otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_crisis

[Hoatzin]

The position you are arguing from is one of ancient Greek philosophy.. natural law etc.

If it is it is unconscious, but I think you misunderstand me if that's the case. I don't claim that anyone does anything altruistically, although I've had many lecturers argue with me that they do. It seems that there is historical precedent for humans doing things which either benefit everyone but themselves, or else benefit no-one including themselves.

[edyb123]

What's the point in making a law against something you don't think is "bad"? In most societies, there is a mass consensus over what is right or wrong. That is why, just as scientific theories are overturned, so are laws that become unpopular. This is dynamic social truth. It's not "right" or "wrong", neither is it "worthwhile" or "pointless". It is simply something that exists in societies of people. You can ignore it or claim that it doesn't exist just because it's not "objective". But doing so would make you a terrible politician.

You sound like you're arguing my point now.. I have never denied that society has its own idea on what is right and wrong. Yes like you have just said.. it is not objective... every society has their own laws that are subjective. You've completely switched sides of the argument.

The social forces that sculpt these laws are any less "real" or worthy of our awareness and consideration just for being subjective (and we really need a better word for this; there is a world of difference between subjectivity and Gustav LeBon's "crowd psychology", in which the will of the individual is frequently lost). Ethics is about life and consciousness, not about physics or chemical reactions. Yes, the two cross over, but the key difference in this context is that, while science should be unemotional, ethics should be emotional. Ethics is not about saying that something should or shouldn't be done because of some objective truth, so it's absurd to argue as if it thinks that it is and that you are somehow disproving this.

All i have argued against is an objective moral code. Ethics deals with objective morality. Society doesn't make its laws based on what are the "right" and "wrong" morals.. they make them based on the majority emotion. If most people do not like death then murder is banned. But murder is not therefore objectively wrong it is just banned subjectively in a society.

Actually, ethics exists to regulate this. In the absence of ethics, anything that is popular could become "moral" or legal. We have ethical codes because, as you say, there is a house of cards that prevents us from fully realising that, for example, we outnumber the police massively and thus they should not represent a threat to our liberty. Why shouldn't you kill someone if they would not be missed?

What? But you have just said that ethics is not objective and that it is the consideration of societies emotions and feelings/opinions. How can ethics exist to regulate itself? Ethics does not exist before the people make it as it is not objective. Nothing regulates popular opinion because popular opinion makes ethics!

Why shouldn't you do whatever you want? If the only argument against it is that the consequences will be bad, then if you believe that are still worth it, why not? We shouldn't beat people up because they might beat us up back. But what if we're really really strong and can handle anyone who tries to beat us up?

Well that's how the world works.

Without ethics, there is no reason for us not to do whatever we want. You can see this in action in global politics all the time. Nations invade other nations not because they think there would be no negative consequences, but simply because those negative consequences are seen to be worth putting up with.

Then whyyyyy in the world would people want to restrict themselves. Just because some people disagree with it... if countries don't care about ruining other countries to get their oil then why would they stop? Why would they create laws to stop them doing what they want? Madness!
This is why trying to create objective morality makes no sense! It is not there in the first place so why would you make it if you don't have to?

So yes, basically ethics is trying to establish a "code of conduct" that doesn't depend on people's capacity for empathy. Whether that has anything to do with "objective truth" or not, I think you're a fool if you declare it "pointless".

People who create laws are only doing it for their own interest. The code of conduct you are talking about would only be made to help the people who made it.

If you've read all of that i congratulate you.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Okay, would you agree that:
Ethics = search for right or wrong
What is good for all of mankind = right
What is bad for all of mankind =wrong

[edyb123]

Okay, would you agree that:
Ethics = search for right or wrong

Yes.

What is good for all of mankind = right
What is bad for all of mankind =wrong


Good = right and Bad = wrong...... in effect that is narrowed down to wrong and right.

I believe wrong and right are concepts held by people. But i don't believe in them myself. Wanna know why? There's a hell of a lot of writing above.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Yes.



Good = right and Bad = wrong...... in effect that is narrowed down to wrong and right.

I believe wrong and right are concepts held by people. But i don't believe in them myself. Wanna know why? There's a hell of a lot of writing above.Yes I know I read it.

What I'm asking is:
What is good for all of mankind = right
What is bad for all of mankind =wrong
Not:
Good = right
Bad = wrong
Slightly different but different none the less.

[edyb123]

Yes I know I read it.

What I'm asking is:
What is good for all of mankind = right
What is bad for all of mankind =wrong
Not:
Good = right
Bad = wrong
Slightly different but different none the less.

For that question to make sense i have to believe in wrong and right.
If they do exist then.. no i don't agree. You can't just pull that out of thin air. there needs to be a reason for you to make those points.

Why not the other way around?

Good and right mean the same thing though.. you are saying "What is good for all of mankind = good"

[Hoatzin]

Ok. So i think perhaps the title was not a particularly good one.

It really wasn't. You've done anything except argue that ethics is pointless so far!

- I don't think that application of objective morality makes sense or can be done.
- I don't think that objective morality even exists.
- I think ethics relates to decisions made by people based on objective morality.

Well this is where you're falling down because that's not what ethics is at all.

I responded in more depth to this post but have since deleted the response because it was too rambling and tended to repeat itself. The basic argument was:

Ethics is not simply the rule of majority. It is a subjective morality, but based on those "truths we hold to be self-evident" - things which clever people in positions of power have gradually arrived at as being beneficial to the largest amount of people without being significantly detrimental to any one person. As such, if the majority are in favour of, say, reinstating the death penalty, and the societal ethic has declared that the state has no right to kill, then the majority could be over-ruled based on that ethical objection.
I don't think you can compare the subjective morality of an individual to that of a mass. While people may not always consider others, people do think differently and react differently when they are part of a crowd. Again, check out some Gustav Le Bon.
Most people, religious or otherwise, do not just say "killing is wrong". They say "killing is wrong because..." and have reasons for killing. The reason that euthanasia would be more acceptable than murder is that the reasons a person considers murder to be wrong - like that it's involuntary, that it is painful, that it is a selfish act on the part of the murderer, etc. - do not apply in that situation. If someone did consider killing to be "just wrong", then they'd be hypocritical to support euthanasia. But I do think you are tarring a hell of a lot of people with the same brush by asserting that they simply accept a version of morality (implying that they might just as easily accept any other version) without understanding it. There might be a few out there who still believe in God's ineffable plan and wouldn't question anything in the Bible. But most people do question. The fact that they might question something but then still agree with it after doing so is, I think, the thing that sticks in nihilism's craw so often.
American Christianity in the 21st century is not representative of all religion ever. Sounds obvious, but in light of some of the things you've said, I think it worth saying that it is foolish to make assertions about "religious people" based on experience of one religion at one time in one place. For all I know you have studied many religions, across the globe, at various points in history. But even from my limited experience of it, I find it hard to imagine that you would describe "religious people" the way you have if you had truly met a representative sample of them. I have met as many "unquestioning" people who'd laugh at the idea of going to church as I have religious people, and probably more although that's not really fair given that I don't hang around with many church goers.
Staying with America, I'd say that that nation is in an unfortunate position of having a supposedly solid definition of morality - the Constitution - which can be "amended". Note that "amended" is typically used, rather than, say, "altered" - the implication being that any change made to this document is a change for the better, because it has the authority of governmental majority. This isn't the case everywhere. UK law has no such constitution, for example, and suggestions that we have one have been largely ignored.

The reason I mention this is that I think the way you're describing ethics is more accurate as a description of democracy. But ethics is not democratic. If anything, it is intended to curb democracy, to ensure that something which might be popular cannot become legal if it would be harmful. You only have to look at Nazi Germany to see why.
As a more general point, the theme of "x is the same as y because it shares a common identified attribute within this ideology the way I have framed it" is downright contrary to your PoMo standpoint. One person who objects to one societal rule is comparable to another who objects to another societal rule (or even the same rule) only on that basis, and no other similarity between them can be implied or assumed. As I said in the euthanasia point, reasons are usually given as to why something is immoral. It is not merely declared as such. So someone who conflicts with the majority on an issue for one reason is only "the same" as someone else who conflicts with the majority on another issue if they conflict for the same reason, and even then it's debatable. I don't think it's particularly helpful to draw "extreme" analogies at the expense of sense.

The examples you gave were obviously intended to be emotive, whether you were consciously trying to do so or not. If you are trying to "make me aware" that ethics only provide a subjective morality, you didn't have to. I have never argued that they do provide an objective one. I have, however, argued that there is a difference between the subjective morality of a society and the whims of an individual. There are those who are amoral, rather than merely immoral, after all. The argument is different for someone whose morals conflict with that or a society, compared to the argument you'd make regarding someone who has no morals.
While I understand that ethics are subjective, I don't think it benefits anyone to present them as such. Call it a societal white lie if you like, I don't care. Is it better to paint a subjective morality as being more than just that, or to give people free reign to kill each other because you daren't claim authority for fear of deceiving them? Of course, the law doesn't need to claim objective truth - hence the maxim "if you don't like America then you can git out!", which implies that there are other places you can go if you don't agree with a certain law.

Ethics lacks that luxury, and must justify any law. However, while you have said that a theory can be disproven, that does not mean that no theory can be made. Indeed, a theory must be disprovable in order to be deemed proven or even scientific. In the same way, an ethicist must support himself. If he makes assumptions - e.g. "killing is wrong" - he must say so, so that a reader may know that, if that assumption is not made, different results may be yielded. Ideally, he should also explain why he has made these assumptions. A society must explain why a law exists, and ideally state its assumptions in creating any law. If the assumption is "the majority will always be right", then that needs to be made clear from the off.

My point is that, even if we are starting from subjective assumptions, we can build from those assumptions in a logical way.

That's enough for now. I have to say that, even after all this, I still don't fully understand what argument you're trying to make, other than that ethics is pointless because people don't realise that it's subjective. I'd argue that no, actually they do.

I also think that the picture you've painted of "the religious" describes a relatively small number of people, and I would argue that there is probably something to people - not a "higher" sense of right and wrong, if anything a "lower" sense, deriving from biological imperatives - that tells them not to be dicks unless they think they can deal with the consequences, which applies to religious people as well as non-religious people. I don't think that a religion which told people to act against those drives would ever be popular or long-lasting, and I base this largely on the absence of any major religion which is radically different from the others. Even Scientology is gradually evolving to be more liberal and less dependent on absolute compliance, even if it's having a tough time getting there.

[OlderWaterBrother]

For that question to make sense i have to believe in wrong and right. You don't believe in wrong or right? Then for you, Ethics which is a search for what is right or wrong, would be pointless by definition and there’s no point in discussing it.
If they do exist then.. no i don't agree. You can't just pull that out of thin air. there needs to be a reason for you to make those points. I’m not just “pulling them out of thin air”, I’m tying to establish some definitions for what is being talked about. If you don’t like the definitions, fine, how about you define them.
Why not the other way around?
Good and right mean the same thing though.. you are saying "What is good for all of mankind = good"One, I did not say; good and right are the same thing and two, "What is good for all of mankind = good" is not the other way around. The other way around would be; "What is right for all of mankind = good".

[Hoatzin]

Also, re the comment about my apparently "ancient Greek" position, I haven't read any Greek philosophy. Most of what I'm talking about is informed by 20th Century philosophy, the likes of Habermas, Levi-Strauss, Althusser and such. I'm well aware of PostModernism, and while I agree with some of its tenets, I think it makes for better commentary on culture than it does politics or science. Deleuze and Guttari talk a good game but ultimately fail the math, Baudrilliard is only persuasive if you want him to be, and generally they talk about power as if it were absolute anathema (while never actually committing to saying so) with no apparent regard for how it comes to be where it is. If there's a post-modernist I have any real respect for, it's probably McLuhan, if only because he seemed like less of a grumpy sod and more of a "could be worse, could be raining" cynical optimist - very British, for an American.

I mention this because I feel, consciously or otherwise, you are trying to paint me as old-fashioned. I'm sure there were plenty of stupid ideas floating around back then; it seems likely that the ones that have endured to influence the Enlightenment thinkers of Europe have probably done so because they have some factual basis. I'm not keen on embracing new ideas purely because they are new, to be honest. I like to see them tested first, and so far very few seem to have the balls to really take nihilism and run with it. Severing all patriarchal morality is clearly not as easy as everyone thinks it will be!

[Hoatzin]

You don't believe in wrong or right? Then for you, Ethics which is a search for what is right or wrong, would be pointless by definition and there’s no point in discussing it.

Well, not just ethics: discussing anything would be next to impossible. Fortunately for us, he does believe in right and wrong, even if he doesn't realise it. He's talked about a "functional" society, for example.

For that question to make sense i have to believe in wrong and right.

No, you just have to know what they are.

[edyb123]

You don't believe in wrong or right? Then for you, Ethics which is a search for what is right or wrong, would be pointless by definition and there’s no point in discussing it.

Well.. that is the title of my thread.. i am trying to explain this simple point.

I’m not just “pulling them out of thin air”, I’m tying to establish some definitions for what is being talked about. If you don’t like the definitions, fine, how about you define them.

Well where is your evidence that "what is right for man kind = good."
That is the same as me saying... what is right for peanut butter = good.

There is nothing being said here.

It would make more sense if you said "What God commanded us to do = good".... if you believe in a God that is.

One, I did not say; good and right are the same thing and two,

I know you didn't but they are. How do you seperate right and good? Whats the difference.

"What is good for all of mankind = good" is not the other way around. The other way around would be; "What is right for all of mankind = good".

I meant "What is bad for mankind = good" why is that any less meaningfull?

We need a reason to know why something is good or bad.

[edyb123]

Well, not just ethics: discussing anything would be next to impossible. Fortunately for us, he does believe in right and wrong, even if he doesn't realise it. He's talked about a "functional" society, for example.

Yes discussing anything in terms of objectivity is impossible.
I talk about a functional society as one that works in certain terms. I agree that you can discuss things subjectively i.e. we can relate subjective laws to a subjective plan of what a subjective society can be like.

As you have said.. discussing anything objectively is impossible. But to switch it around... if you discuss ANYTHING in objective terms then everything else in the universe can be discussed in objective terms. If you believe in wrong and right you also believe in good art and bad art... you believe in beauty and ugliness... beauty is never in the eye of the beholder etc.

No, you just have to know what they are.I can't understand something if i don't believe it... hence you don't understand my argument and i don't understand yours.

Do you understand why racists are racist? or can you only see where their logic fails?

If you fully understand a view point then you hold it also.

[edyb123]

I don't really have the time to reply in full right now.. but i'll say this...

so you do not believe in objective ethics? right? but you believe we can lay down a set of widely accepted basic laws and rights?

You say that ethics can stop the majority of a "bad" view getting into power.. and as we have seen "bad" opinion has gotten into power in the past.

The problem is that, because ethics are not (in a godless world) obtainable from a book or a God etc... they can only be obtained from people. As we know.. majority opinion cannot equal "more ethical" opinion.. because sometimes that is not the case (according to you i.e. nazi germany).. so how do we know which people actually have the ethical opinions if the amount of them isn't an indicator? How?

It doesn't make sense.. If you were in Nazi Germany and people said to you "you are in the minority and therefore have wrong ethics" how could you contend? You are just getting your ethics from how you feel.

When people have say.. very different urges to that of a majority why are their ethics less important? You argument is based entirely on what is best for the biggest amount of people.. that is not morality....

[Hoatzin]

Yes discussing anything in terms of objectivity is impossible.
I talk about a functional society as one that works in certain terms. I agree that you can discuss things subjectively i.e. we can relate subjective laws to a subjective plan of what a subjective society can be like.

Sorry, but you gave no impression that you were talking about a subjective notion of "function".

As you have said.. discussing anything objectively is impossible. But to switch it around... if you discuss ANYTHING in objective terms then everything else in the universe can be discussed in objective terms. If you believe in wrong and right you also believe in good art and bad art... you believe in beauty and ugliness... beauty is never in the eye of the beholder etc.

I don't think discussing anything objectively is impossible exactly. I just don't see it as a worthwhile exercise.

I can't understand something if i don't believe it... hence you don't understand my argument and i don't understand yours.

You're aware of what right and wrong are widely regarded to be, what they would be to you if you believed in them. Therefore you can understand a sentence or an argument that references them. If you then choose not to try to do so, that's your choice.

Do you understand why racists are racist? or can you only see where their logic fails?

If you fully understand a view point then you hold it also.

Then I draw a distinction between understanding and "fully understanding". I do not fully understand the motivations of a racist, but that doesn't mean that I can't be part of a discussion about racism purely because I'm not a racist. That would be ridiculous.

[edyb123]

I do not fully understand the motivations of a racist, but that doesn't mean that I can't be part of a discussion about racism purely because I'm not a racist. That would be ridiculous.

But you can only find fault in their argument. With an argument you don't agree with... all you can do is follow the line of thought until you find the fault and then it makes no sense.

[Hoatzin]

I don't really have the time to reply in full right now.. but i'll say this...

so you do not believe in objective ethics? right? but you believe we can lay down a set of widely accepted basic laws and rights?

Yup.

You say that ethics can stop the majority of a "bad" view getting into power.. and as we have seen "bad" opinion has gotten into power in the past.

Yup, but only because you said "can".

The problem is that, because ethics are not (in a godless world) obtainable from a book or a God etc... they can only be obtained from people. As we know.. majority opinion cannot equal "more ethical" opinion.. because sometimes that is not the case (according to you i.e. nazi germany).. so how do we know which people actually have the ethical opinions if the amount of them isn't an indicator? How?

How would you do it, if you had to?

It's a lot more complex, I think, than we have time for here. Why does an atheist listen to Richard Dawkins? Is it essential for him to be an atheist that he do so? And if it isn't, then what value does his expertise hold?

It doesn't make sense.. If you were in Nazi Germany and people said to you "you are in the minority and therefore have wrong ethics" how could you contend? You are just getting your ethics from how you feel.

I don't really understand the question. You are talking as if there was some well-established ethical framework that concurred with Nazism. To my knowledge, there wasn't one. Anti-Semitism was widespread at the time and likely still would be if World War 2 had never happened.

When people have say.. very different urges to that of a majority why are their ethics less important? You argument is based entirely on what is best for the biggest amount of people.. that is not morality....

I've categorically not said that. If you're just going to lie about what I'm arguing then I'm not going to bother to talk to you, as it's difficult enough at the best of times.

[Hoatzin]

But you can only find fault in their argument. With an argument you don't agree with... all you can do is follow the line of thought until you find the fault and then it makes no sense.

No, sorry, don't agree with that at all. This would imply that if I don't agree with the argument you're making in this thread I cannot possibly understand it, which would also be wrong.

[edyb123]

I have to go now.. but i will continue at another time.

I think you have still failed to explain how we distinguish between indidividual ethics as to which should be enforced on soceity. Have you not got a simple explanation? What are the basic ways of doing so?

Also, if you are trying to filter out ethics that are of priority based on them preserving life or keeping personal freedom how did you arrive at the decision that they are more important than others? Why is life and freedom the most desirable? because you think so? (i'm not saying these are your views... but just if they are)

[Hoatzin]

I think you have still failed to explain how we distinguish between indidividual ethics as to which should be enforced on soceity. Have you not got a simple explanation? What are the basic ways of doing so?

I got bored and gave up trying, to be honest.

I'm not an ethicist and if I based this on my own beliefs then you would no doubt make all kinds of crazy claims about how unobjective I was being. In all honesty, I think you do know what most people mean by "right" and "wrong", even if you refuse to believe that you can know these things. You know that people base ethics on, for example

attempting to provide the maximum gain to everyone without causing harm to anyone,
lives of the many vs. lives of the few
avoiding death at all costs to quality of life
maintaining quality of life at the expense of quality of life
etc.

These are just examples, and the discussion of ethics normally comes when they come into conflict.


Why is life and freedom the most desirable? because you think so? (i'm not saying these are your views... but just if they are)

I guess because they are harder to recover once lost than death and subjugation. A big reason not to kill people is that, once you've killed them, you can't unkill them. Whereas if you let them live, you could always kill them later, right? :D

[OlderWaterBrother]

Well.. that is the title of my thread.. i am trying to explain this simple point.
Ethics = search for right or wrong
There is no right or wrong
Thus ethics is pointless
What’s to explain?
Well where is your evidence that "what is right for man kind = good." Sorry you got it wrong again, oops sorry, there is no wrong, so let me see you got it incorrect again. I did not say, "what is right for man kind = good." I said "what is good for mankind = right." Also you don't evidence when deciding on definitions you just need agreement on what the definitions should be.
That is the same as me saying... what is right for peanut butter = good. Actually No, we’re not talking about peanut butter for one thing and for another if we were talking about peanut butter you could say that, then we could discuss whether that is a good definition that could be used or not. So once again, I’m tying to establish some definitions for what is being talked about. If you don’t like the definitions, fine, how about you define them.
It would make more sense if you said "What God commanded us to do = good".... if you believe in a God that is. We are not talking about God, we are talking about Ethics in general.

I know you didn't but they are. How do you seperate right and good? Whats the difference. No they are not the same and would separate them by definition.
I meant "What is bad for mankind = good" why is that any less meaningfull?It’s not any less meaningful but it would mean killing off mankind is a good thing, which some might agree with but my definition of “What is good for mankind = right" would mean that things that preserve mankind would be considered morally right.
We need a reason to know why something is good or bad.A reason?

[edyb123]

Ethics = search for right or wrong
There is no right or wrong
Thus ethics is pointless
What’s to explain?

If you have read the above conversation you will see that i have had a very hard time explaining why there is nothing to explain.

Sorry you got it wrong again, oops sorry, there is no wrong, so let me see you got it incorrect again. I did not say, "what is right for man kind = good." I said "what is good for mankind = right."

Lets not get tied down in things like that. They mean the same thing anyway.

Also you don't evidence when deciding on definitions you just need agreement on what the definitions should be.

So all definitions in the world don't need evidence? How and why would you make a definition with no evidence. And if you can make a definition without evidence, whos definition is the right one? How can people possibly agree on what a definition should be without evidence of even needing one?

Actually No, we’re not talking about peanut butter for one thing and for another if we were talking about peanut butter you could say that, then we could discuss whether that is a good definition that could be used or not.

But i thought definitions didn't need evidence. If a lot of people agree with me then why not? How can we discuss whether it is a good definition to use if there is nothing to base it on.

So once again, I’m tying to establish some definitions for what is being talked about. If you don’t like the definitions, fine, how about you define them.

Why do we need definitions for what is being talked about? I thought you told me that if i don't believe in ethics it is a pointless discussion.

I don't believe in right and wrong so how can i define them.
If you are trying to explain why there is a right and wrong then it won't work if you use them in their context. Explain why we have them and how you know we have them rather than how you can use them. I know how you can use them but it is pointless to me.

We are not talking about God, we are talking about Ethics in general.

I don't think morality/ethics can exist (and make sense) without a God... that is why i used the example of God.

No they are not the same and would separate them by definition.

I don't think you can.

It’s not any less meaningful but it would mean killing off mankind is a good thing, which some might agree with but my definition of “What is good for mankind = right" would mean that things that preserve mankind would be considered morally right.

So people can have different ideas of wrong and right. How do we know who to listen to if any?

A reason?

Yes, a basis to why we think something is either good or bad.

If you say "What is good for mankind = right" then you need to back it up with a reason.. otherwise you may have pulled it out of thin air.

[edyb123]

I'm not an ethicist and if I based this on my own beliefs then you would no doubt make all kinds of crazy claims about how unobjective I was being.

At least you know where i'm coming from.

In all honesty, I think you do know what most people mean by "right" and "wrong", even if you refuse to believe that you can know these things.

Ofcourse i know what they mean. They mean that "right" things are things we should work towards and vice versa. Whether i think we can obtain a pure sense of right and wrong is a different matter. I understand that most people think they have an understanding of wrong and right.. but i don't see a point in the argument besides that there are lots of them.

You also know that this isn't all that "crazy" of an idea and people have long considered the matter.

You know that people base ethics on, for example

attempting to provide the maximum gain to everyone without causing harm to anyone,
lives of the many vs. lives of the few
avoiding death at all costs to quality of life
maintaining quality of life at the expense of quality of life
etc.

Some people but not all people. I know what people have a tendency to think.

These are just examples, and the discussion of ethics normally comes when they come into conflict.

Yes, within its context ethics has a point.. people actually think they are discussing "right" and "wrong" and so ethics is born.
Ethics exists and serves a purpose.. but the purpose it serves is to compare meaningless morals to meaningless morals.

With ethics there will always be debate.. because of the fact that no morals are set in stone. People always come up with their freshly made morals that contradict the old ones.

[OlderWaterBrother]

If you have read the above conversation you will see that i have had a very hard time explaining why there is nothing to explain.



Lets not get tied down in things like that. They mean the same thing anyway.



So all definitions in the world don't need evidence? How and why would you make a definition with no evidence. And if you can make a definition without evidence, whos definition is the right one? How can people possibly agree on what a definition should be without evidence of even needing one?



But i thought definitions didn't need evidence. If a lot of people agree with me then why not? How can we discuss whether it is a good definition to use if there is nothing to base it on.



Why do we need definitions for what is being talked about? I thought you told me that if i don't believe in ethics it is a pointless discussion.

I don't believe in right and wrong so how can i define them.
If you are trying to explain why there is a right and wrong then it won't work if you use them in their context. Explain why we have them and how you know we have them rather than how you can use them. I know how you can use them but it is pointless to me.



I don't think morality/ethics can exist (and make sense) without a God... that is why i used the example of God.



I don't think you can.



So people can have different ideas of wrong and right. How do we know who to listen to if any?



Yes, a basis to why we think something is either good or bad.

If you say "What is good for mankind = right" then you need to back it up with a reason.. otherwise you may have pulled it out of thin air.I can see why you're having so much trouble a course in basic logic for you would be helpful.

[edyb123]

I can see why you're having so much trouble a course in basic logic for you would be helpful.

That's pretty insulting.

Have you even bothered to offer an answer? Do you even have an answer?
Just going to repeat the same thing over and over even when i shoot it full of holes?

What don't you understand about "Giving a reason for a belief in wrong and right".

What do you not understand about what i have said? Where am i wrong?

The way you have structured all your arguments shows that you are not adept with debating in a logical manner.

How about you read up on some basic philosophy. You can start with Moral Relativism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

A reply like that shows defeat; Or maybe you're just a little bit past it.

[OlderWaterBrother]

That's pretty insulting.Actually No, I was just being truthful.

[edyb123]

Actually No, I was just being truthful.

There goes that clever old mind of yours again.

Things can be both truthful and insulting.

Now are you going to offer ANY kind of reply? Because if you intend to spout crap and expect everyone to agree without argument then you don't understand what a debate is for so please don't clutter up my threads with shit.

[BlackBillBlake]

If you are not religious then morality is subjective.. and so doesn't have any real meaning. Asking an ethical question without religion is asking a question based on terms with no logic.



Your thoughts and opinions are also subjective, so does that mean your words here are actually without 'real meaning' ? Hard to see the difference.

As for so called 'religious ethics' - they are fixed, or were fixed during past epochs when half the moral issues we now face didn't exist, and since any form of revision is generally frowned upon by the religious, it's hard to see how any ethical progress could ever be made under such a scheme.

To the islamic fundie, religious ethics would include indifference to things like punishment by mutilation etc, or even seeing them as desirable, and commanded by allah, which to the ethical sense of most people is utterly abhorent and un-acceptable.

[OlderWaterBrother]

There goes that clever old mind of yours again.

Things can be both truthful and insulting.

Now are you going to offer ANY kind of reply? Because if you intend to spout crap and expect everyone to agree without argument then you don't understand what a debate is for so please don't clutter up my threads with shit.For one thing if you were to take a logic or philosophy course, you would learn that name calling is a logical fallacy and wouldn't be doing it.

[edyb123]

Your thoughts and opinions are also subjective, so does that mean your words here are actually without 'real meaning' ? Hard to see the difference.

Such is the way with nihilism/existentialism. Whether or not what i say has meaning.. i am assumming communication through an external reality of which i CAN know exists. Using words implies meaning of some sort.. and that is because i have to use what you consider to have meaning to make "sense" in your eyes. But yes you are right to say that what i say is subjective... but so is everything. It is the problem with this kind of thought. But it does not automatically imply that there is objectivity.

As for so called 'religious ethics' - they are fixed, or were fixed during past epochs when half the moral issues we now face didn't exist, and since any form of revision is generally frowned upon by the religious, it's hard to see how any ethical progress could ever be made under such a scheme.

My point is that under a God, all the objective ethics ever needed are given... hence they are objective.

Without God ethics are non-existent.

To the islamic fundie, religious ethics would include indifference to things like punishment by mutilation etc, or even seeing them as desirable, and commanded by allah, which to the ethical sense of most people is utterly abhorent and un-acceptable.

Well? If i actually believed in Allah and believed that he had given us all we need to know and do then i would see them as desirable to. They only do it because they believe it is commanded by God.

[edyb123]

For one thing if you were to take a logic or philosophy course, you would learn that name calling is a logical fallacy and wouldn't be doing it.

I have taken a philosophy course.

Philosophy is not one belief.

You seem to fail at thinking outside the box. Answer my questions or don't. I don't care for smartass replies.

Objectivity = universally applicable laws that are set in stone
Subjectivity = personal opinion

Right and wrong are concepts. As moral relativists claim, objective morality cannot exist because there is nothing for it to be obtained from.

You saying something about what is good for mankind being right does not mean anything without evidence.

Just because most people claim this is true does not mean that it is.

Do you see the conundrum now?

[BlackBillBlake]

My point is that under a God, all the objective ethics ever needed are given... hence they are objective.

Without God ethics are non-existent.



I suggested before that 'all the ethics ever needed are given' is not the case. There are new ethical issues which religions don't mention, because they didn't exist at the time they were formulated.
Take drugs and their recreational use, or their use for so called nimnd expansion and personal growth - nothing at all in koran, bible, diamond sutra etc about that.
Same with genetic engineering and many other ethical issues.

I really don't think ethics requires god to lay down fixed moral laws. In effect they are more like conventions or norms arrived at by human beings looking at things and seeing how beneficial improvements can be made.
Marxism might furnish an example of this type of approach.

Well? If i actually believed in Allah and believed that he had given us all we need to know and do then i would see them as desirable to. They only do it because they believe it is commanded by God.

Well maybe what god commanded back in medieval arabia isn't what god would command now.
You just might come to think that allah had morals remarkably similar to those of a medieval warlord, and even that perhaps this particular conception of god is a bit lacking.
What prevents this is usually fear, or lack of education, or blind conservatism.
People need to learn to see beyond the little bubble universe of their trad religions.

[OlderWaterBrother]

I have taken a philosophy course.

Philosophy is not one belief.

You seem to fail at thinking outside the box. Answer my questions or don't. I don't care for smartass replies.

Objectivity = universally applicable laws that are set in stone
Subjectivity = personal opinion

Right and wrong are concepts. As moral relativists claim, objective morality cannot exist because there is nothing for it to be obtained from.

You saying something about what is good for mankind being right does not mean anything without evidence.

Just because most people claim this is true does not mean that it is.

Do you see the conundrum now?”I have taken a philosophy course.”?
Then why do you continue to use the logical fallacy of name calling?

And yes I do see the conundrum, that's why I said that you might benefit from logic and philosophy courses.

Let’s take a look at what you are hung up on.
Okay, would you agree that:
Ethics = search for right or wrong
What is good for all of mankind = right
What is bad for all of mankind =wrong
At no time in this quote did I say that these statements were right, correct or true, I merely asked your opinion of whether you agreed with them or not? Since when do I need evidence or a reason to ask someone opinion?

At which point you said I was just pulling it out of thin air, to which I replied:
I’m not just “pulling them out of thin air”, I’m tying to establish some definitions for what is being talked about. If you don’t like the definitions, fine, how about you define them.Which you still haven’t done as far as I know.

[edyb123]

”I have taken a philosophy course.”?
Then why do you continue to use the logical fallacy of name calling

Firstly, taking a philosophy course does not imply that i am not a human and don't act on impulse. Neither am i perfect. Neither do i care whether or not insults are logical.

Secondly how exactly are they a logical fallacy? So critique of things is a fallacy?

Thirdly, stop detracting from the discussion.

And yes I do see the conundrum, that's why I said that you might benefit from logic and philosophy courses.This is because you think i am wrong. At least i have given an argument! My argument is taught in philosophy classes... doubt in what we can know is a basic principle of logic.

Why tell me that i need logic courses? How is this any help? I don't care how you think i reason, i want a debate. If you disagree then say why. Don't just give one line replies that offer nothing besides more questions.

At no time in this quote did I say that these statements were right, correct or true, I merely asked your opinion of whether you agreed with them or not? Since when do I need evidence or a reason to ask someone opinion?Okay then well start explaining what your opinions are.

I have already answered that for me to disagree or agree with that i have to understand where the claims come from. It makes no sense otherwise.

That is my answer, it is an illogical claim.

Learn to think outside of the box. I can't say whether or not i agree because there is nothing to agree with.

If you don't understand that then you need to do some thinking. If youd do understand then tell me where you are taking this.

Which you still haven’t done as far as I know.My definition: "right" = a human idea of what should be done.. what is the correct course of action.

"wrong" is the opposite.

However, it is impossible to know what should or shouldn't be done.

If you think my claims are a bit vague then read between the lines... it will take forever if you ask such basic questions at a slow rate.

[Hoatzin]

Ofcourse i know what they mean. They mean that "right" things are things we should work towards and vice versa. Whether i think we can obtain a pure sense of right and wrong is a different matter. I understand that most people think they have an understanding of wrong and right.. but i don't see a point in the argument besides that there are lots of them.

See, while there might be many subtly different versions, I don't think it would be true to claim that one couldn't identify trends in them. One could observe that people tend to be more sympathetic towards murder based on their socio-economic background, or on their religious faith, for example.

Subjectivity isn't an excuse to wallow in ignorance; it's a challenge to us to make sense of information knowing that there are only degrees of relative truth and certainty rather than absolutes. You've already hinted that you understand this, that the absence of absolutes should not render us unable to function.

You also know that this isn't all that "crazy" of an idea and people have long considered the matter.

I know it's not wrong, but I think one would be crazy to dwell on it, knowing that it's logically irreconcilable with the process of living.

And many matters that have been long considered aren't worth knicker elastic.

Some people but not all people. I know what people have a tendency to think.

So what if it's not all people? Does it actually matter? Do you think that, in the presence of some objective truth, the situation would be any different? There'd still be people denying it.

You've got it backwards: power decides what is objective and subjective. There's no objective measure of objectivity!


Yes, within its context ethics has a point.. people actually think they are discussing "right" and "wrong" and so ethics is born.

Ethics exists and serves a purpose.. but the purpose it serves is to compare meaningless morals to meaningless morals.

With ethics there will always be debate.. because of the fact that no morals are set in stone. People always come up with their freshly made morals that contradict the old ones.

And we're back to this again: people who discuss ethics apparently think they're discussing "right" and "wrong". Maybe, but the "right" and "wrong" that they're discussing is the one that you have already professed to understand. So far, the only person I've seen asserting that those who consider ethics are convinced that they're discussing an objective morality is you. I've never known any ethicist do so.

When did you first discover post-modernism? Was it recent?

[OlderWaterBrother]

Neither do i care whether or not insults are logical. Then why are you in the Philosophy forum? Why not start this in the Random Thoughts forum

Secondly how exactly are they a logical fallacy? They are a fallacy in the fact that even if I’m the stupidest person who ever lived and you may even have proof of it, that fact does not prove or disprove what I’ve said. What has been said stands on its own regardless of who said it and needs to be proved or disproved on its own merits.

As for the statement itself the same is true, you can call it stupid, ridiculous, idiotic, boneheaded or smartass but alas, that does not in any way prove or disprove that statement.

Thus name calling is a logical fallacy and a waste of time.

So critique of things is a fallacy? Yes, in logic it is a fallacy. Unless in someway the critique has something to prove or disprove what has been said and in that case forget the critique and just say what proves or disproves.

Thirdly, stop detracting from the discussion.Actually, you are the one distracting from the discussion, I merely was trying to get the discussion on track by trying to establish definitions and common ground for the discussion, Philosophy 101, and you’re the one who made a big deal of it

[dd3stp233]

If you are not religious then morality is subjective.. and so doesn't have any real meaning. Asking an ethical question without religion is asking a question based on terms with no logic.


Its not logical to based one life, beliefs, ethics or morals on unproven fiction, ie religion.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Its not logical to based one life, beliefs, ethics or morals on unproven fiction, ie religion.What you've just said is unproven as well. Do you base your life on it?

[famewalk]

And we're back to this again: people who discuss ethics apparently think they're discussing "right" and "wrong". Maybe, but the "right" and "wrong" that they're discussing is the one that you have already professed to understand. So far, the only person I've seen asserting that those who consider ethics are convinced that they're discussing an objective morality is you. I've never known any ethicist do so.

When did you first discover post-modernism? Was it recent?



Still we observe that the right judgments were examples of such ways for what we, each one of us should do instead. Not to say that this is not hypocritical, but so often such is the mystified state we walk around in. This is post-modernism which is not recent, but a style of architecture, environmental responses towards the certified fact of endorsing respectability for what it''s worth. Yes, it is materialism usually making ourselves with the knowledge we think should be understood.

So religion is the alternative of ethics of standards for behaviour. Standards , or moral standards, are for the philosophy of justificationalism. We must also prove ourselves trustworthy to show our own standards to the community.

Such is how the anti-wicked community works. But morality again and again is requested for how we react inidivdually to the Law.

That's a book: just like the Bible.:cheers2:

[dd3stp233]

What you've just said is unproven as well. Do you base your life on it?

It may not be proven because it isn't written as a proof. Reasoning is the foundation of logic. There is no sound proof for the religious arguement so how could it be reasonable for it to be logical?

[OlderWaterBrother]

It may not be proven because it isn't written as a proof. Reasoning is the foundation of logic. There is no sound proof for the religious arguement so how could it be reasonable for it to be logical?God or no God has been argued for thousands of years and by some of the best minds in history and it hasn't been proved one way or the other.

Now unless you've have come up with a proof since yesterday that means that; There is no sound proof for the anti-religious argument so how could it be reasonable for it to be logical?

So my question still stands; What you've just said is unproven as well, do you base your life on it?

[xexon]

A lack of ethics only works with a hermit.

Ethics are a basic code that allows people to exist in groups with as little friction as possible. Those that belong to that particular group do so because it reflects their own desire to live in peace. They're willing to put aside certain personal freedoms in exchange for this harmony.

Ethics have to be flexible. It's a low mark on civilization when they're not.



x

[radareyes]

Ethics (and morality) are an illusion of the separative identity. They are a vain and contrived attempt to emulate the behavior of an individual who has realized their true and infinite nature, which is always intrinsically pure and harmonious.

Ethics only exist in proportion to the degree to which one has repressed the desires and motivations of the separative identity. When the illusion of separation has been dispelled, ethics become entirely irrelevent.

So yes, ultimately, ethics are completely pointless -- albeit not for the reasons stated in this thread's initial post.

Travis

[dd3stp233]

Ethics is also part of religion. I'm not sure why the OP describes it as separate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_in_religion



God or no God has been argued for thousands of years and by some of the best minds in history and it hasn't been proved one way or the other.

Now unless you've have come up with a proof since yesterday that means that; There is no sound proof for the anti-religious argument so how could it be reasonable for it to be logical?


If someone has a bike, they have 1 bike. A person with no bikes, has 0 bikes. A person with an anti-bike has -1 bike. The lack of something is not the opposite of it. It is the neutral position between positive and negative. Which equates 0 numerically. Its takes nothing to prove nothing. 0=0 That is logical. Since religion is an positive assertion, for it to be logical, it would require a series of logical steps that would add up to it, like A+B+C+D=religion. A,B,C,D don't exist. Therefore religion is not logical.

[OlderWaterBrother]

If someone has a bike, they have 1 bike. A person with no bikes, has 0 bikes. A person with an anti-bike has -1 bike. The lack of something is not the opposite of it. It is the neutral position between positive and negative. Which equates 0 numerically. Its takes nothing to prove nothing. 0=0 That is logical. Since religion is an positive assertion, for it to be logical, it would require a series of logical steps that would add up to it, like A+B+C+D=religion. A,B,C,D don't exist. Therefore religion is not logical.Nice try. :rolleyes:

[Rudenoodle]

Nothing is true everything is permitted

[Okiefreak]

What does ethics achieve?the survival of the human species.

If you are religious then (usually) your morality is laid down by a God. It is black and white, do this, don't do that. No discussion needed. A lot of it is grey, but there are general principles that guide us, like the golden rule.

If you are not religious then morality is subjective.. and so doesn't have any real meaning. Asking an ethical question without religion is asking a question based on terms with no logic.So Dawkins,Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens are wrong or pulling our legs when they argue that atheists can be as moral and ethical as religious people? Actually, I think Dawkins makes a good case that altruism has survival value for the species, and is deeply rooted in human evolution.

Q: Is it wrong to murder?

A: If you are a christian yes, if you are an atheist then wrong has no context. If you are a Christian then do not murder. If you are an atheist then it's up to you.

Without religion every question is subjective. An answer can't be given without circumstances. At the end of the day there is no right and wrong and a person must just choose what is most beneficial to them... whether it be in a selfish manner of selfless.

Questions like "Should i cheat on my gf blah blah" are so mundane.. if you ask a priest he will say no.. anyone elses opinion is just that.. personal opinion. It is neither wrong or right to cheat on your gf.. if happiness is your goal then weigh up what will make you happier. If loyalty is your goal then weigh up what is more loyal. I hope you're views aren't typical for atheists.You sound like a budding Ted Bundy.

There seem to be four basic kinds of people in the world, classified according to their reactions when spotting a turtle crossing the highway of life: (1) the nasties, who aim for the turtle; (2) the scrooges, who continue along indifferent as to whether or not they hit the turtle; (3) the concerned, who swerve to avoid the turtle; and (4) the rescuers, who park their cars, get out, and take the turtle to safety. Which you are is ultimately a matter of choice, largely influenced by personality and conditioning. A society is healthy if it condemns 1 & 2, and encourages 3 & 4. A society is sick if it does the opposite. A sick socity will eventually collapse after its members suffer the misery of Hobbes' proverbial "War of all against all." So it is in the self interest of society to encourage 1 & 2, and discourage 3 & 4. Hence the public lip service paid to religion, and the difficulty nihilism has in getting a following. Sometimes, society's other agendas upset this balance. e.g., Capitalism's pursuit of economic efficiency and commercialism can encourage #2 and even #1. Concern about this development has fueled a religious revival in the United States, but the struggle is touch and go. In evolutionary terms, what we're talking about is Dawkins' memes, and the struggle among them for survival. May the turtle lover meme prevail!

[edyb123]

the survival of the human species.

A lot of it is grey, but there are general principles that guide us, like the golden rule.

So Dawkins,Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens are wrong or pulling our legs when they argue that atheists can be as moral and ethical as religious people? Actually, I think Dawkins makes a good case that altruism has survival value for the species, and is deeply rooted in human evolution.

I hope you're views aren't typical for atheists.You sound like a budding Ted Bundy.

There seem to be four basic kinds of people in the world, classified according to their reactions when spotting a turtle crossing the highway of life: (1) the nasties, who aim for the turtle; (2) the scrooges, who continue along indifferent as to whether or not they hit the turtle; (3) the concerned, who swerve to avoid the turtle; and (4) the rescuers, who park their cars, get out, and take the turtle to safety. Which you are is ultimately a matter of choice, largely influenced by personality and conditioning. A society is healthy if it condemns 1 & 2, and encourages 3 & 4. A society is sick if it does the opposite. A sick socity will eventually collapse after its members suffer the misery of Hobbes' proverbial "War of all against all." So it is in the self interest of society to encourage 1 & 2, and discourage 3 & 4. Hence the public lip service paid to religion, and the difficulty nihilism has in getting a following. Sometimes, society's other agendas upset this balance. e.g., Capitalism's pursuit of economic efficiency and commercialism can encourage #2 and even #1. Concern about this development has fueled a religious revival in the United States, but the struggle is touch and go. In evolutionary terms, what we're talking about is Dawkins' memes, and the struggle among them for survival. May the turtle lover meme prevail!

For Gods sake.

I know what makes a society work... i'm not an idiot. I have never said that i don't like society.. or want to it thrive... BUT arguing that we "should" be concerned and preventative just because it encourages a productive society does not make sense.

Do you not understand the existentialist and nihilistic arguments? You need a basis for this objective morality. Sadly, there is no basis. Therefore there is no such thing as wrong and right.

It is ignorant of you to assume that because i don't believe in an objective morality i am a budding mass murderer. I'm not full of hate.. i do not want to kill people... but that does not mean i think anyone can determine whether or not it is okay to kill people.

It is all relative.

and i suggest that everyone watches this short clip:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yY5r_zox-a8

Two quotes from the video:

"There are people all over the world who are killing each other over who has the right reality tunnel"

"If you let other people define reality for you then you are living in hell. When you create your own reality you are living in heaven"

The titles of the video is "Who is the master who makes the grass green".... which refers to us as individuals making our own reality and knowledge. Things are what we say they are. If everyone is an individual then nothing is fact.. just opinion.

People can live in a civilised society without objective morality, it's just that they don't have to.

Also, when people claim to have objective truth and morality it causes conflict.. because claims are different all over the world. A society that is agnostic about everything really has the potential to be peaceful.

[edyb123]

Also, claiming to have knowledge of a universal moral code is the same as claiming there is art that is better than other art. Music that is better than other music.

It is meaningless to say that one musician is better than another because everyone interprets music differently. There is no such thing as good music... only different tastes.

Neither can we say that one act is any better than any other act. It is all just personal opinion.

[famewalk]

What about the moral code: not to be wicked. Anticipate the life ahead as if it had every form of improvisation you could dream of. Of course, we might the find the code of living: that we shoudl every moment as if it were our last too tormenting or just plain gullible (wicked).

Ahaaa...h (the Polish guy gets that again... I'll reject that soon in favour of the improving the improving b-sequence of Time).

[edyb123]

what?

[behindthesun93]

I guess you're going along the lines of nihilism?

[Stabby]

So in summary: Just because there isn't any objective, all-encompassing moral code that applies to everyone the same way doesn't mean that we're exempt from having our own personal ethical beliefs. The ethical beliefs that are "right" are the ones that serve you the best. I find goodness to serve me the best.

[OlderWaterBrother]

"A point in every direction is the same as no point at all"

[jamaican_youth]

What does ethics achieve?

If you are religious then (usually) your morality is laid down by a God. It is black and white, do this, don't do that. No discussion needed.

If you are not religious then morality is subjective.. and so doesn't have any real meaning. Asking an ethical question without religion is asking a question based on terms with no logic.

Q: Is it wrong to murder?

A: If you are a christian yes, if you are an atheist then wrong has no context. If you are a Christian then do not murder. If you are an atheist then it's up to you.

Without religion every question is subjective. An answer can't be given without circumstances. At the end of the day there is no right and wrong and a person must just choose what is most beneficial to them... whether it be in a selfish manner of selfless.

Questions like "Should i cheat on my gf blah blah" are so mundane.. if you ask a priest he will say no.. anyone elses opinion is just that.. personal opinion. It is neither wrong or right to cheat on your gf.. if happiness is your goal then weigh up what will make you happier. If loyalty is your goal then weigh up what is more loyal.

Questions only make sense in relation to something else.

Murder is wrong - nonsense
Murder of your best friend is not a very good idea because he is your friend and you like him - logic

Not true, atheists and christians both get their morality from their innate conscious, and are solidified in our society by laws, the bill of rights etc.

Are you seriously telling me people didn't know it was wrong to steal or murder before Moses delivered the 10 commandments? Really? And apparently these people would continue to think rape and slavery was OK in that case since they weren't listed as part of them. Yeah according to the bible, saying god damn is worse than having my own sex slave. Come on, give the human race a little credit.

we don't get our morality from religion, it's darwinism, it's human nature to be nice to each other because it's mutually beneficial, we're social creatures, it helped us evolve and move out of the jungle. If anything religion just gets in the way of our morality, gives people an excuse to do bad things. Often times it's religion that is subjective.

Our morality is constantly evolving and changing with the times, and religion looks a little more dated each and every year. Slavery, racism, homosexuality, all issues we are addressing by ourselves, religion has no say in the matter. How could we be capable of such thoughts if religion hasn't told us to do it? Well the answer is that it's not possible, clearly we can decide what is good and what is bad on our own.

[LanSLIde]

Ethics (and morality) are an illusion of the separative identity. They are a vain and contrived attempt to emulate the behavior of an individual who has realized their true and infinite nature, which is always intrinsically pure and harmonious.

Ethics only exist in proportion to the degree to which one has repressed the desires and motivations of the separative identity. When the illusion of separation has been dispelled, ethics become entirely irrelevent.

So yes, ultimately, ethics are completely pointless -- albeit not for the reasons stated in this thread's initial post.

Travis I'll have to keep an eye out for your posts


There seem to be four basic kinds of people in the world, classified according to their reactions when spotting a turtle crossing the highway of life: (1) the nasties, who aim for the turtle; (2) the scrooges, who continue along indifferent as to whether or not they hit the turtle; (3) the concerned, who swerve to avoid the turtle; and (4) the rescuers, who park their cars, get out, and take the turtle to safety. Which you are is ultimately a matter of choice, largely influenced by personality and conditioning. A society is healthy if it condemns 1 & 2, and encourages 3 & 4. A society is sick if it does the opposite. A sick socity will eventually collapse after its members suffer the misery of Hobbes' proverbial "War of all against all." So it is in the self interest of society to encourage 1 & 2, and discourage 3 & 4. Hence the public lip service paid to religion, and the difficulty nihilism has in getting a following. Sometimes, society's other agendas upset this balance. e.g., Capitalism's pursuit of economic efficiency and commercialism can encourage #2 and even #1. Concern about this development has fueled a religious revival in the United States, but the struggle is touch and go. In evolutionary terms, what we're talking about is Dawkins' memes, and the struggle among them for survival. May the turtle lover meme prevail!Good

A lack of ethics only works with a hermit.

Ethics are a basic code that allows people to exist in groups with as little friction as possible. Those that belong to that particular group do so because it reflects their own desire to live in peace. They're willing to put aside certain personal freedoms in exchange for this harmony.

Ethics have to be flexible. It's a low mark on civilization when they're not.



x Good as well

we don't get our morality from religion, it's darwinism, it's human nature to be nice to each other because it's mutually beneficial, we're social creatures, it helped us evolve and move out of the jungle. If anything religion just gets in the way of our morality, gives people an excuse to do bad things. Often times it's religion that is subjective.
While I agree with the main point of your post as I understood it, I feel that the growing complexity of human interaction as well as individual psychology calls for a bit more than an evolutionary approach to address accurately. Also, society continues to prosper with anti-socials/immorally acting individuals in it, so perhaps the decision to live peaceably with others could be somewhat more than instinctual. I did go over, though, psychological theories where selfless behavior is seen as the result of one's instinct to see their family/race/species survive.



I feel that the line is becoming blurred between ethics and social contract in this thread. What I know of ethics is more complex than "Is it wrong to murder?" and is more the act of weighing between two hard options and judging which would best be undertaken. This isn't the best example of what I mean, but it is one of my favorites anyway:

If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had eight children already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?


If you said yes, you just killed Beethoven.

[OlderWaterBrother]

. . . clearly we can decide what is good and what is bad on our own. Clearly, that's what we've been doing but just as clearly, just taking a look around us, we haven't been doing a very good job of deciding what is good and what is bad.

[Hoatzin]

Clearly, that's what we've been doing but just as clearly, just taking a look around us, we haven't been doing a very good job of deciding what is good and what is bad.

Common sense again, eh?

Just looking around, my life is pretty great, so clearly I and my family and John Logie Baird have been doing something right.

[Tsurugi_Oni]

You're absolutely right.

But considering that we're dealing with humans, there are certain *given* truths. Nobody likes pain, nobody wants their stuff stolen, nobody likes to be enslaved, etc.

But there's always an exception to the rule. We lock up mass murderers cuz we don't know what else to do with em, we justify stealing from multi-billionaires, and we cause pain to prevent pain.

That's the great thing about realizing true ethics. It depends on who they believe they are and how they believe the world is. It leads to the most beautiful drama called life.

[Stabby]

I agree that the only absolutes are individual pleasure and pain. It can be effectively argued that not causing others pain and working towards greater collective pleasure serves oneself more than short-sighted selfishness, however the extent that such a philosophy maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain remains specific to one's situation and personal conscience. Therefore there is no reasonable ethical code other than that the individual adopts for their self. Having said that, there seems to be a high occurrence of intersubjectivity which creates the illusion of universal truths, but in reality they are not universal. What of the true sadist who can get away with hurting others? Surely "do no harm to others" is a poor ethical doctrine for him.

[Hoatzin]

Basically, the second you try to maximise another person's pleasure, you run the risk of failing to do so, causing yourself and possibly them greater discomfort (through cognitive dissonance, physical pain, or physical harm).

On the other hand, if one simply minds one's own business, even only attempting to maintain a constant level of happiness, one can still feel guilty if there is social inequality.

Ethics is an attempt to make this situation less horrible.

[Stabby]

I think that the threadstarter meant that absolute ethics were pointless, and they are. Nobody would be silly enough to believe that ethical philosophy is pointless. At least I hope they wouldn't be.

[Hoatzin]

I wouldn't say it's pointless, but all it really amounts to is a set of assumptions. I think Ethics is cited by those who just want to bolster their own intuitive opinion almost as much as God or Science.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Common sense again, eh?

Just looking around, my life is pretty great, so clearly I and my family and John Logie Baird have been doing something right. Who said anything about common sense?

Personally, I have great life, although some would say anyone saying so is being entirely subjective.

Also just because someone buries his head in the sand so he doesn't see what's going on doesn't mean that the barrier reefs aren't dying, that the oceans haven't become a giant waste dump for mankind's pollution and the animals in the oceans aren't being fished to extinction and that's just the oceans. Clearly someone is making some bad choices or are you one of those that think these are the results of good choices or just the cycle of life.

[Rudenoodle]

Also just because someone buries his head in the sand so he doesn't see what's going on doesn't mean that the barrier reefs aren't dying, that the oceans haven't become a giant waste dump for mankind's pollution and the animals in the oceans aren't being fished to extinction and that's just the oceans. Clearly someone is making some bad choices or are you one of those that think these are the results of good choices or just the cycle of life.

What a cynical view of life you have, I bet your alot of fun at childrens birthday parties.

[OlderWaterBrother]

What a cynical view of life you have, I bet your alot of fun at childrens birthday parties. Cynical? Realistic, perhaps, cynical no. Just because I believe that mankind has been really stupid and has brought mankind to the brink of destruction, doesn't mean there is no hope for the future. It's only people, who don't believe there is a God and have to depend on the idiocy of mankind to save them, that are truly hopeless.

[LanSLIde]

Pain is the gift which makes pleasure so treasured

[Hoatzin]

Who said anything about common sense?

Words to the effect of "just look around you and you'll see that the world is shit" are an appeal to common sense. Those who want to believe you will be able to find evidence.

Personally, I have great life, although some would say anyone saying so is being entirely subjective.

I - not "some" - would say that any claim that the world is getting "worse" is also entirely subjective. At the very least it's a misleadingly general word to use when we are usually referring to something incredibly specific (e.g. the decline in perceived, popular and publicly expressed acceptance of a certain type of spiritual belief). e.g. wars are a bad thing if we choose to measure good and bad by the number of people alive, but someone might just as easily say that the world is unsustainably over-populated, and that given how reprehensible we find the idea of deliberate government population control, a war where a lot of people just happen to die is a happy medium.

Also just because someone buries his head in the sand so he doesn't see what's going on doesn't mean that the barrier reefs aren't dying, that the oceans haven't become a giant waste dump for mankind's pollution and the animals in the oceans aren't being fished to extinction and that's just the oceans. Clearly someone is making some bad choices or are you one of those that think these are the results of good choices or just the cycle of life.

I'm not burying my hand in the sand. I just don't plan on burying my head in my hands.

Also, as a Christian, isn't it problematic for you to regard all these signs of The Last Days as a bad thing? I mean, think about it: if it's written in the Bible that these things will come to pass anyway, how can they be considered a bad thing? For them to not happen would be a defiance of God's word, surely?

[Hoatzin]

It's only people, who don't believe there is a God and have to depend on the idiocy of mankind to save them, that are truly hopeless.

I don't think so. I think what will happen is that those who believe in a God and think this way will have the luxury of waiting around for these "hopeless" people to fix their problems, and when they do, they will be able to say that it was their God and their faith that saved them, even though all the evidence would indicate that it was the "hopeless"' lack of faith that motivated them to try and solve the problem themselves.

That's what I think.

[sunfighter]

Personally, I have never noticed any difference in morality or goodness or kindness between believers and non-believers. Actually, I've probably seen more mean-spiritedness from believers.

I have never believed in God. My morality is based in the Golden Rule, which is kinda common sense.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Words to the effect of "just look around you and you'll see that the world is shit" are an appeal to common sense. Those who want to believe you will be able to find evidence. Actually, there’s plenty of evidence, whether you want to believe me or not. And I’m not the one saying it, it’s all those scientists, that everyone seems to trust so much, that are saying it or do you only trust them when they’re disagreeing with the Bible?

I - not "some" - would say that any claim that the world is getting "worse" is also entirely subjective. At the very least it's a misleadingly general word to use when we are usually referring to something incredibly specific (e.g. the decline in perceived, popular and publicly expressed acceptance of a certain type of spiritual belief). e.g. wars are a bad thing if we choose to measure good and bad by the number of people alive, but someone might just as easily say that the world is unsustainably over-populated, and that given how reprehensible we find the idea of deliberate government population control, a war where a lot of people just happen to die is a happy medium. This I would say, falls into the category of saying what is good is bad and what is bad is good.

I'm not burying my hand in the sand. I just don't plan on burying my head in my hands. So what are you planning to do? Paper or plastic?

Also, as a Christian, isn't it problematic for you to regard all these signs of The Last Days as a bad thing? I mean, think about it: if it's written in the Bible that these things will come to pass anyway, how can they be considered a bad thing? For them to not happen would be a defiance of God's word, surely? Knowing that mankind is killing it’s self is not a happy thing for Christians, even though we know that the end result will be good, the unnecessary pain and suffering that mankind will put it’s self through will not be pleasant or enjoyable for anyone.

[lunarverse]

What does ethics achieve?

If you are religious then (usually) your morality is laid down by a God. It is black and white, do this, don't do that. No discussion needed.

If you are not religious then morality is subjective.. and so doesn't have any real meaning. Asking an ethical question without religion is asking a question based on terms with no logic.

Q: Is it wrong to murder?

A: If you are a christian yes, if you are an atheist then wrong has no context. If you are a Christian then do not murder. If you are an atheist then it's up to you.

Without religion every question is subjective. An answer can't be given without circumstances. At the end of the day there is no right and wrong and a person must just choose what is most beneficial to them... whether it be in a selfish manner of selfless.

Questions like "Should i cheat on my gf blah blah" are so mundane.. if you ask a priest he will say no.. anyone elses opinion is just that.. personal opinion. It is neither wrong or right to cheat on your gf.. if happiness is your goal then weigh up what will make you happier. If loyalty is your goal then weigh up what is more loyal.

Questions only make sense in relation to something else.

Murder is wrong - nonsense
Murder of your best friend is not a very good idea because he is your friend and you like him - logic

Dude, life as a whole is pointless. The sooner you and everyone else realise this the sooner we can all get on with our lives and get back to dick jokes and sarcasm.

[OlderWaterBrother]

I don't think so. I think what will happen is that those who believe in a God and think this way will have the luxury of waiting around for these "hopeless" people to fix their problems, and when they do, they will be able to say that it was their God and their faith that saved them, even though all the evidence would indicate that it was the "hopeless"' lack of faith that motivated them to try and solve the problem themselves.

That's what I think. Sorry Christians are not holding their breath waiting for the “hopeless” to fix anything. If you paid any attention at all to the world around you, you would know nothing is being fixed. You seem to be saying that, some person, some where, will some how, come up with something, some time soon and will save the day. Now who has faith in miracles?

[Stabby]

Gosh you Americans are so negative. The world is beautiful and wonderful as long as you stop dwelling on everything that you would like to be better but isn't and won't be.

[lunarverse]

Gosh you Americans are so negative. The world is beautiful and wonderful as long as you stop dwelling on everything that you would like to be better but isn't and won't be.

I case you were refering to me I'm not American. And I didn't mean my comment negatively. I meant it realistically.

[Stabby]

It just seems like it's all the Americans whining about how the world is horrible and falling apart lately. The world is what you make of it :)

[Stabby]

I case you were refering to me I'm not American. And I didn't mean my comment negatively. I meant it realistically.

Actually I was not referring to you. Although I disagree that life is pointless. Life is inherently meaningless, however we are able to give it meaning and a point.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Gosh you Americans are so negative. The world is beautiful and wonderful as long as you stop dwelling on everything that you would like to be better but isn't and won't be.
It just seems like it's all the Americans whining about how the world is horrible and falling apart lately. The world is what you make of it :) Yes there is still much about the world that is beautiful but honestly, do you really believe that being a Pollyanna will stop the barrier reefs from dying? Or stop the release of green house gases? Or stop the melting of the permafrost? Or stop the Oceans from being polluted? Or fish from being fished to extinction? Or stop foreign insect pests from devastating the forests of north America? Or the stop clear cutting of rain forests? or get rid of the permanent brown cloud over most cities? Do you really see all this and more, going away if we all just put on a happy face? :D

[Hoatzin]

Who said anything about it going away? Are you arguing that these things are bad, or that they are making things worse? Because if they're just bad, then they can carry on being bad. No rational person expects the world to be and remain perfect. Constant change is as natural as being at rest.

[Hoatzin]

Actually, there’s plenty of evidence, whether you want to believe me or not. And I’m not the one saying it, it’s all those scientists, that everyone seems to trust so much, that are saying it or do you only trust them when they’re disagreeing with the Bible?

Sorry, I think you're confused. No-one is denying that things like climate change is happening. Scientists have basic consensus on this. However it is a major leap from that scientific consensus to "the world is falling apart and we need to pray real hard". Very few scientists who believe in climate change and even man-made climate change believe that it can be reversed.

This I would say, falls into the category of saying what is good is bad and what is bad is good.

Then you'd be wrong.

So what are you planning to do? Paper or plastic?

I don't understand the question.

Knowing that mankind is killing it’s self is not a happy thing for Christians, even though we know that the end result will be good, the unnecessary pain and suffering that mankind will put it’s self through will not be pleasant or enjoyable for anyone.

Mankind is not killing itself. There's 6 billion of us now, and that's following such massive depletions of the population as the Black Death. If anything, Man is far TOO successful as a species. But we'll figure something out. We always have. God may like to torment us now and then with plagues and disasters, but we've always won.

Sorry Christians are not holding their breath waiting for the “hopeless” to fix anything. If you paid any attention at all to the world around you, you would know nothing is being fixed. You seem to be saying that, some person, some where, will some how, come up with something, some time soon and will save the day. Now who has faith in miracles?

That is completely inaccurate and I think you know it.

[Stabby]

Yes there is still much about the world that is beautiful but honestly, do you really believe that being a Pollyanna will stop the barrier reefs from dying? Or stop the release of green house gases? Or stop the melting of the permafrost? Or stop the Oceans from being polluted? Or fish from being fished to extinction? Or stop foreign insect pests from devastating the forests of north America? Or the stop clear cutting of rain forests? or get rid of the permanent brown cloud over most cities? Do you really see all this and more, going away if we all just put on a happy face? :D

No. However a happy face is favorable to dwelling on it.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Who said anything about it going away? Are you arguing that these things are bad, or that they are making things worse? Because if they're just bad, then they can carry on being bad. No rational person expects the world to be and remain perfect. Constant change is as natural as being at rest.
Sorry, I think you're confused. No-one is denying that things like climate change is happening. Scientists have basic consensus on this. However it is a major leap from that scientific consensus to "the world is falling apart and we need to pray real hard". Very few scientists who believe in climate change and even man-made climate change believe that it can be reversed.
Then you'd be wrong.
I don't understand the question.
Mankind is not killing itself. There's 6 billion of us now, and that's following such massive depletions of the population as the Black Death. If anything, Man is far TOO successful as a species. But we'll figure something out. We always have. God may like to torment us now and then with plagues and disasters, but we've always won.
That is completely inaccurate and I think you know it.Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.

I guess your comment; "I don't understand the question.", pretty much sums it up for you. Maybe one day you will. Till then, may you be happy in your not understanding.

[lunarverse]

Actually I was not referring to you. Although I disagree that life is pointless. Life is inherently meaningless, however we are able to give it meaning and a point.

Not really. Human beings take things from experience, beliefs, and religion (if they are religious) and they use those to define life for themselves. They don't give life meaning however. There is no meaning to life, you just 'are'. Even if you're religious, you live your life right, then die and go to heaven. Okay, but what was the point to being here? To live right and peacefully. Living 'right' and 'peacefully' define your life for you but they don't give it a meaning.

[Stabby]

There's definitely a point to living, making the most of it while you're hear. However I think I got the semantics mixed up and didn't make the distinction between meaning and point. Life is indeed meaningless. By "life is pointless" did you mean that it was inherently meaningless?

[Hoatzin]

Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.

I guess your comment; "I don't understand the question.", pretty much sums it up for you. Maybe one day you will. Till then, may you be happy in your not understanding.

You forgot to wink.

[Hoatzin]

Not really. Human beings take things from experience, beliefs, and religion (if they are religious) and they use those to define life for themselves. They don't give life meaning however. There is no meaning to life, you just 'are'. Even if you're religious, you live your life right, then die and go to heaven. Okay, but what was the point to being here? To live right and peacefully. Living 'right' and 'peacefully' define your life for you but they don't give it a meaning.

In that scenario, surely the lack of an inherent and knowable meaning to life is actually incredibly liberating, because it means that, rather than trying to figure out which if any of the hundreds of "meanings of life" people have asserted over the ages is the right one, you can just make up your own and keep yourself occupied. As Voltaire said, "let us work; it is the only way to render life tolerable".

[Stabby]

Yay existentialism :)

I do believe that happiness and fulfillment are the only irrefutable absolutes in life, as they're what make existing preferable to not existing. However what constitutes happiness and fulfillment is completely subjective.

[Tsurugi_Oni]

If you don't think there's a meaning to life you guys must of never had a truly spiritual experience.

You think that this inifinite existence is here for no reason? The spiritual nature of existence is also a secular.

Peace, love, joy, serenity. We've been given tools to magnify these inborn feelings 1000x beyond what most people allow themselves to feel. Understanding ourselves, our place in our world, and how to magnify this internal joy is our true purpose.

It's almost comparable to being on your deathbed your whole life and then reaching perfect health. That is the difference in joy between people who are average and those who know deeply the gifts of our bodies. Once you get a teasing drop of the unlimited joy that is the very nature of our being, from the peak of that bliss the average will seem like being sick.

[Stabby]

We aren't here for any specific reason, thus life has no inherent meaning or purpose. Only that which we give it.

[OlderWaterBrother]

You forgot to wink. You kind of indicated that you were irritated by my use of winks, so I've been trying to accommodate you by not using them when I speak to you.

[Hoatzin]

You kind of indicated that you were irritated by my use of winks, so I've been trying to accommodate you by not using them when I speak to you.

I think that was Okiefreak, not me, but either way, it's not like they did anything more than complement all the other irritating things about you.

[Hoatzin]

I do believe that happiness and fulfillment are the only irrefutable absolutes in life, as they're what make existing preferable to not existing. However what constitutes happiness and fulfillment is completely subjective.

Indeed. Instant gratification is unrewarding. Context plays a big part in it. But it's complicated because, while the joy we experience as a result of producing some great work of art at 30 might be greater than the joy we experience from spinning round really fast at 5, that may only be true from the point of view of the 30 year old.

[Meagain]

Life is a "migration of static patterns (natural laws) toward Dynamic Quality."
"Biological evolution can be seen as a process by which weak Dynamic forces at a subatomic level discover stratagems for overcoming huge static inorganic forces at a subatomic level." - Robert Pirsig

So, the purpose of life is to defeat static laws such as the law of gravity, as in the limited movement of cells, the more animated animals, the flight of birds, and rocket ships to the moon. This is the ultimate ethical goal. That which attempts to archive that goal is biologically ethical, that which opposes it is not.

Onto the layer of biological ethics are built the other ethical systems, such as sexual ethics, social, religious, national, group, corporate ethics, and so on.

"not just life, but everything, is an ethical activity." "The 'Laws of Nature' are moral laws....if chemistry professors are moral...and if chemistry professors exercise choice, and chemistry professors are composed exclusively of atoms, then it follows that atoms must exercise choice too."- Pirsig again.

[OlderWaterBrother]

I think that was Okiefreak, not me, but either way, it's not like they did anything more than complement all the other irritating things about you. Not you? . . . those awful ;)s all the time. . . . Sure seems like you said something about not liking them but maybe I was mistaken. ;)