Ethics = completely pointless

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

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.

 

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.

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.

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".

 

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!

 

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.

No, you just have to know what they are.

 

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

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.

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

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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....

 

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

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

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.

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.

 

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.

 

Yup.

Yup, but only because you said "can".

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?

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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)

 

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.

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?

 

Ethics = search for right or wrong
There is no right or wrong
Thus ethics is pointless
What’s 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." Also you don't evidence when deciding on definitions you just need agreement on what the definitions should be.

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.

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

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

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.

A reason?

 

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.

 

At least you know where i'm coming from.

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.

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

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.

 

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.

 

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.