- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
I take an ethical naturalist perspective operating under the notion of people trying to maximize their eudaemonia and ethics being the most reliable strategy for doing so
Ethics
- Thread starter autisticdragonkin
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
Why do all these terms need to exist? What's wrong with saying "I want to be as happy as-possible without being a cunt".
Seems like a perfectly reasonable goal to me.
Seems like a perfectly reasonable goal to me.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
Because they allow for saying things more precisely which will help in making decisions. Saying "I want to be as happy as-possible without being a cunt" may be able to work in practice for some decisions but it is horribly vague and there are many scenarios in which it is completely useless.
It is ambiguous as to what the scope of that statement is. Do you value the happiness of others or just yourself?
It is ambiguous as to what time frame the statement refers to. Do you value happiness now more or less than in the future?
"Happy" could mean pleasure or Eudaemonia (wellbeing)
"Being a cunt" could mean anything from breaking the law to reducing other peoples pleasure to simply doing something that is distasteful. Elaborate.
What is the nature of that statement? Is it a description of what you are doing? Is it an imperative?
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
I don't know dude, I just don't like the idea of summing up my entire ethos with some jargon. Like I said in the Objectivist thread I just try to respond to things naturally without tying myself to some dogma. Who doesn't value the happiness of others? Cunts or sociopaths obviously. Everyone knows what a cunt is.
I suppose if you want something from me I'm a democratic-socialist, quasi-moral absolutist (or maybe I'm just thinking of moral realism), probably a few other things I don't know the words for and I think that philosophies like Solipsism and the like are pointless and don't solve anything. I think what I sense is real. I don't like ideas that don't have practical applications. To be happy is to enjoy your life without damaging innocent people. I'm kind of cynical about the way things are going in the world and don't really have much faith in humanity at-large.
If you know the words for these things I'd love to know so I can look them up.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
If I had to put a label on it, I'd say I'm (mostly) a preference utilitarian and (mostly) reject deontological ethics.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2013
It is, but outside of a few extremely mentally ill people it basically describes every single living human being, so it's a pretty poor way to identify somebody's behaviour or philosophy.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
Well that's why I'm in this thread. To learn these terms that I can maybe describe my position with. Like AnOminous just said deonticologicl, never heard of it, going to look it up.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2015
Ethics was always one of those subjects which made my eyes feel like they were melting. It seems to try and make the straightforward, abstract. I did have a very shit ethics teacher tbf.
I will always cheer efforts to be more precise with language, but my main bugbear with identifying yourself with any one branch of ethics is illustrated by @AnOminous here:
This hedging is necessary because no one branch of ethics seems to have all the answers, or even offer a workable system for tackling life's problems and difficulties. Life is a maelstrom of variables, and tying yourself to any one way of looking at a situation seems detrimental and reductionist. @AnOminous is a smart dude, and can obviously see that, hence hedging.
As mentioned in the Rand thread, I very much like the Stoic philosophy and their ethics, but I can't say I follow their ethics too thoroughly if I'm being honest. They praise abstinence as a virtue, and I've woken up on far too many strangers carpets/gardens/roofs of beach huts in my lifetime.
If you want a good laugh, look up Scientology ethics. I'm a bit of Scientology watcher, and what they consider to be ethics, and its enforcement within their church/cult/hugbox is pretty fascinating stuff.
As far as principles for guiding life decisions, I think the vast majority of them can be made without referring to any external code. You just know.
I will always cheer efforts to be more precise with language, but my main bugbear with identifying yourself with any one branch of ethics is illustrated by @AnOminous here:
This hedging is necessary because no one branch of ethics seems to have all the answers, or even offer a workable system for tackling life's problems and difficulties. Life is a maelstrom of variables, and tying yourself to any one way of looking at a situation seems detrimental and reductionist. @AnOminous is a smart dude, and can obviously see that, hence hedging.
As mentioned in the Rand thread, I very much like the Stoic philosophy and their ethics, but I can't say I follow their ethics too thoroughly if I'm being honest. They praise abstinence as a virtue, and I've woken up on far too many strangers carpets/gardens/roofs of beach huts in my lifetime.
If you want a good laugh, look up Scientology ethics. I'm a bit of Scientology watcher, and what they consider to be ethics, and its enforcement within their church/cult/hugbox is pretty fascinating stuff.
As far as principles for guiding life decisions, I think the vast majority of them can be made without referring to any external code. You just know.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
Responding to things in a non-systematic manner can work in the majority of situations but it is still an inconsistent methodology that will not work in areas such as policymaking.
Someone can simply look at the evidence and decide that there is no reason for them to value the happiness of others. Someone can be a perfectly normal member of society simply out of self interest and for most people there is no difference. They would not self sacrifice but they will still act reciprocally.
I don't.
A political position not an ethical one.
Quasi-realism is the notion that ethical statements express emotion and syntactically are similar to propositions but not semanically similar to propositons
Moral realism is the notiuon that ethical statements express propositions, and thus have truth values which are mind independent and some are true
Solipsism isn't ethics its epistemology
Agreed
You need to define "your", "enjoy", "damage", and "innocent people" in order to have a coherent meaning
Agreed but that is not related to ethics
Wouldn't a good system simply prescribe different ways of making decisions in different scenarios while still being consistent and thus applicable to all scenarios?
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2014
You will get a far better discussion if you provide definitions of technical terms. A big part of the draw of discussion on the farms is the wide and diverse user base, relying on jargon narrows the discussion base to those of us who understand it.
I won't force the issue but it might be worth considering going forward.
I won't force the issue but it might be worth considering going forward.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Deontological ethics, specifically, is ethics based not on its ultimate outcome but on adherence to some principle. I can't, ultimately, see the point in ethics that don't have positive, measurable outcomes in the real world. This would make me, by default, consequentialist in motivation. Utilitarianism, that is, judging an action by its effect in increasing the specific good of the individual, by satisfying their preferences, as well as increasing the net sum of satisfied expectations in the world, is one philosophy that is grounded in consequentialist ethics.
However, if you apply pure logic, you can start with reasonable premises that nevertheless end up in absurd outcomes: for instance, that one can best maximize pleasure in the world by killing all the unhappy people.
There's no way to get from pure reason to a philosophy that doesn't have outcomes like that that are ethical atrocities. So you really do have to start with some basic principles, like "it's wrong to kill people" (outside of some narrowly circumscribed exceptions), even though you're really importing them from deontological, i.e., principles-based ethics.
Now, you can refuse to go with this and be philosophically pure, but then you end up in a trap exemplified by Peter Singer. While one of the most highly regarded ethicists in the world, his logical approach leads to conclusions at times that most "normal" people would find repellent. This doesn't mean that they're necessarily wrong or that he should be condemned for taking things to their logical conclusions, but it does limit the actual utility of it as a philosophy.
Specifically, people aren't going to go along with a utilitarian philosophy that leads to abhorrent conclusions, and will therefore reject it. It should be made more palatable by, therefore, avoiding these conclusions, even if one ends up being, somehow, ideologically impure by doing it.
A glaring example that reaches the point of actual stupidity, though, would be the philosophy of LessWrong, which is an incoherent mess. Despite one of its tenets, somewhat similarly to my own, being that an ethical philosophy should be actually useful and something that could appeal to most people, and that in fact, a viable ethical philosophy should, for maximum benefit, actually be spread, LWers have chosen a strange approach virtually guaranteed to alienate most of the people who encounter it.
tl;dr ethics should be something you can actually apply to reality, and that when you do, leads to a better world, both for yourself and others.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
I would say that the real problem is that humans in their contemporary form are not ready for philosophy. We still use primitive ways of calculating whether something is right or wrong which although inferior to rationality is currently impossible to replace. That is to say however that we probably do not have enough information to make ethical decisions philosophically anyways so we shouldn't change ourselves in the next few centuries even if we are able to do so.
I would say that that is also problematic because it will make it more difficult to eventually reach a workable system to replace human morality with in the future.
I would say that there are two reasons why LessWrong fails.
1. They are very impulsive with their conclusions not realizing that conventional thought does have an evolutionary history supporting it if not good arguments
2. They lack charisma in their explanations. Although one can argue that a pure thinker doesn't need charisma, if one wants to actually have their thought implemented then at least today one has to express it in a way that appeals to the masses. This should be kept out of academic papers though
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2013
Have you heard about Kohlberg's model of ethical behaviour, Studied it as a part of my IT course (the reason why is that the Australian Computer Society wants IT practitioners to be ethical)
to sum it up, there are levels of ethical behaviour and are independent of religion, race gender ETC. Each stage of ethical behaviour needs to be achieved in order and some people (ones with abusive childhoods, People crippled with Autism ECT.) never reach the higher stages. It is an interesting read if you have a moment of free time.
edit
Hoovia haral is probably in stage one or two in that he can only think ethically in terms of if he is rewarded or punished (he threatens to kill himself, he is rewarded with asspats and has no concept that fake threats hurt people in real danger as it creates distrust) and he works in his self interest (gets a tugboat without thinking about who has to pay for it, or contributing back to society in some way)
to sum it up, there are levels of ethical behaviour and are independent of religion, race gender ETC. Each stage of ethical behaviour needs to be achieved in order and some people (ones with abusive childhoods, People crippled with Autism ECT.) never reach the higher stages. It is an interesting read if you have a moment of free time.
Level One: Pre-Conventional Morality
Generally found in children and some adolescents. At level 1, morality is ego- centric, defined by the direct consequences of an act.
Stage 1: Punishment-Obedience Orientation. At this stage people behave according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to do so by an authority figure (parent, teacher etc.). Obedience is only through threat of punishment, i.e. ‘last time I did this I got into trouble, so I won’t do it again’.
Stage 2: Instrumental Relativist Orientation. This stage is characterized by the view that right behaviour is about acting in one's own best interests. No consideration is given to the welfare of others. ‘What’s in it for me?’ If the interests of others are considered at all, it is only in relation to how it might benefit oneself. This stage equates to the Moral Relativism view of ethics where right action is determined by the specific circumstances of time and place.
Level Two: Conventional Morality
Generally found in adolescents and adults. Morality is determined by what is socially acceptable, i.e. the Cultural Relativist view.
Stage 3: Good Boy-Nice Girl Orientation. At this stage a person is characterized by an attitude which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others (i.e. go along to get along with people).’ I want people to like me. They won’t like me if I’m bad’. Morality comes increasingly to be judged on the impact an action has on one’s relationships. At this stage a person becomes more concerned with respect, gratitude and the ‘do unto others as you would have them do to you’ principle. Support for the rules comes mainly from a desire to maintain these social relationships and roles.
Stage 4: Law and Order Orientation. A person abides by the law and responds to the obligations of duty. Support for law and order goes beyond the need for individual approval, as seen in stage 3. The support is for the idea or principle of there needing to be laws. At this stage, to break a law is wrong in principle, regardless of circumstances. This stage equates to the Universalist view of ethics. Most active members of society operate at stage 4.
Level Three: Post-Conventional Morality
At the time Kohlberg formulated his model, he felt that this level was not reached by the majority of adults. Many decades later, the situation may have changed.
At level 3, people are coming increasingly to realise that we are not necessarily defined by the society we live in, that what we believe is right may sometimes differ from what society believes. Post-conventional moralists live by their own personal moral code. Rules are seen to be useful, but should be interpreted on a case-by-case basis as to whether they are appropriate in a given situation.
Stage 5: Social Contract Orientation. A person has an understanding of mutual obligation to others in society and possibly a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The world is seen as a patchwork of differing opinions, rights and values; all of which is worthy of respect. Laws are seen as a social contract rather than a rigid, etched-in- stone edict that can never change. Laws that no longer serve the greater good should be changed. This level equates to the Utilitarian view of ethics where morality is determined by the greatest good to the greatest number. Democratic government is in theory based on stage 5 thinking.
Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principle Orientation. Moral reasoning is based on the application of universal moral principles. Laws are valid only if they are fundamentally just. If a law is unjust, there is a moral obligation to oppose it. Ethical decisions are not reached in a conditional or haphazard way; they are reached categorically, in an absolute way (as prescribed in Kant’s categorical imperatives). Part of this process involves using empathy to stand in another person’s shoes and ask, ‘would I believe this to be true?’
While Kohlberg believed in the existence of Stage 6 and had some nominees for it, he was unable to confirm his belief with evidence. He was unable to find enough subjects, people who acted because it is right, not because it avoids punishment, is in their best interest, is expected by society, is legal, or has been previously agreed upon with others.
Stage 7: Transcendental Morality (theoretical). Later, Kohlberg proposed a seventh stage — Transcendental Morality, or Morality of Cosmic Orientation — which obviously moves into an area that is even more difficult to substantiate with empirical evidence.
From the 1960’s onwards there had been a flourishing and diverse movement the Western world that explored ways of achieving transcendental states of consciousness. This was being achieved by a variety of means, from the ingestion of hallucinogens, to the practice of various religious and mystical practices from India and elsewhere.
Generally found in children and some adolescents. At level 1, morality is ego- centric, defined by the direct consequences of an act.
Stage 1: Punishment-Obedience Orientation. At this stage people behave according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to do so by an authority figure (parent, teacher etc.). Obedience is only through threat of punishment, i.e. ‘last time I did this I got into trouble, so I won’t do it again’.
Stage 2: Instrumental Relativist Orientation. This stage is characterized by the view that right behaviour is about acting in one's own best interests. No consideration is given to the welfare of others. ‘What’s in it for me?’ If the interests of others are considered at all, it is only in relation to how it might benefit oneself. This stage equates to the Moral Relativism view of ethics where right action is determined by the specific circumstances of time and place.
Level Two: Conventional Morality
Generally found in adolescents and adults. Morality is determined by what is socially acceptable, i.e. the Cultural Relativist view.
Stage 3: Good Boy-Nice Girl Orientation. At this stage a person is characterized by an attitude which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others (i.e. go along to get along with people).’ I want people to like me. They won’t like me if I’m bad’. Morality comes increasingly to be judged on the impact an action has on one’s relationships. At this stage a person becomes more concerned with respect, gratitude and the ‘do unto others as you would have them do to you’ principle. Support for the rules comes mainly from a desire to maintain these social relationships and roles.
Stage 4: Law and Order Orientation. A person abides by the law and responds to the obligations of duty. Support for law and order goes beyond the need for individual approval, as seen in stage 3. The support is for the idea or principle of there needing to be laws. At this stage, to break a law is wrong in principle, regardless of circumstances. This stage equates to the Universalist view of ethics. Most active members of society operate at stage 4.
Level Three: Post-Conventional Morality
At the time Kohlberg formulated his model, he felt that this level was not reached by the majority of adults. Many decades later, the situation may have changed.
At level 3, people are coming increasingly to realise that we are not necessarily defined by the society we live in, that what we believe is right may sometimes differ from what society believes. Post-conventional moralists live by their own personal moral code. Rules are seen to be useful, but should be interpreted on a case-by-case basis as to whether they are appropriate in a given situation.
Stage 5: Social Contract Orientation. A person has an understanding of mutual obligation to others in society and possibly a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The world is seen as a patchwork of differing opinions, rights and values; all of which is worthy of respect. Laws are seen as a social contract rather than a rigid, etched-in- stone edict that can never change. Laws that no longer serve the greater good should be changed. This level equates to the Utilitarian view of ethics where morality is determined by the greatest good to the greatest number. Democratic government is in theory based on stage 5 thinking.
Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principle Orientation. Moral reasoning is based on the application of universal moral principles. Laws are valid only if they are fundamentally just. If a law is unjust, there is a moral obligation to oppose it. Ethical decisions are not reached in a conditional or haphazard way; they are reached categorically, in an absolute way (as prescribed in Kant’s categorical imperatives). Part of this process involves using empathy to stand in another person’s shoes and ask, ‘would I believe this to be true?’
While Kohlberg believed in the existence of Stage 6 and had some nominees for it, he was unable to confirm his belief with evidence. He was unable to find enough subjects, people who acted because it is right, not because it avoids punishment, is in their best interest, is expected by society, is legal, or has been previously agreed upon with others.
Stage 7: Transcendental Morality (theoretical). Later, Kohlberg proposed a seventh stage — Transcendental Morality, or Morality of Cosmic Orientation — which obviously moves into an area that is even more difficult to substantiate with empirical evidence.
From the 1960’s onwards there had been a flourishing and diverse movement the Western world that explored ways of achieving transcendental states of consciousness. This was being achieved by a variety of means, from the ingestion of hallucinogens, to the practice of various religious and mystical practices from India and elsewhere.
edit
Hoovia haral is probably in stage one or two in that he can only think ethically in terms of if he is rewarded or punished (he threatens to kill himself, he is rewarded with asspats and has no concept that fake threats hurt people in real danger as it creates distrust) and he works in his self interest (gets a tugboat without thinking about who has to pay for it, or contributing back to society in some way)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
This is psychology related, not philosophy related. That being said I would consider this to be entirely a load of crap. Most people claim that there is some sort of universal objective ethics but just fail to find it. I would say that a variant of contract theory is the top simply out of realizing that there is no such thing as universal justice
@observer please elaborate upon your disagreement
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2014
My personal moral code can be summed up nicely as more or less the Golden Rule. I also think that doing the right thing should be done because it's the right thing, not necessarily because of rules or consensus.
I wouldn't say all people with autism never reach the higher stages. It probably normally depends on how crippling the autism is. People like Shaner and CWC are probably in the "pre-conventional" level when it comes to that scale of ethics.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2014
I would call myself a hedonist, though I like Epicurus' formulation of minimising suffering being preferable to the maximisation of pleasure, and how he places one's own self-satisfaction and efficacy at the center of happiness, rather than pursuing vain or unnecessary things.
The reason I like Epicurus here is because he manages to instrumentalise virtues, respect for your fellow human and of justice as means towards human happiness and abolishing suffering.
The reason I like Epicurus here is because he manages to instrumentalise virtues, respect for your fellow human and of justice as means towards human happiness and abolishing suffering.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2013
I'm really waiting for some Wiccan to explain the law of Threefold Harm in this context
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
Enjoy life and do no harm. Also, doing the right thing doesn't always mean doing the nice thing.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2015