What is Ethics?


BaalChatzaf

Recommended Posts

I say that Ethics is doxa, not logos. now prove that I am mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say that Ethics is doxa, not logos. now prove that I am mistaken.

Ethics is the code you conduct yourself by when there's nobody around to see - and

equally when there is.

(Prove me wrong...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say that Ethics is doxa, not logos. now prove that I am mistaken.

Ethics is the code you conduct yourself by when there's nobody around to see - and

equally when there is.

(Prove me wrong...)

Still based on opinion and judgement. Not derivable from physical law or necessary logical truth such as the principle of non-contradiction. Try again....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a story, which I don't believe but it was told as a true story. The story goes that there is a compartment of Hell called "Thieves Hell" and it is a place where thieves go. (There is a theory of Hell that you go to a compartment of Hell with people who have the same code of ethics you have.) This guy was in Thieves Hell and everybody stole from everybody else. One day he decided that this is a crazy way to live and he is not going to do it any more. A bit later, 2 mysterious men appeared and said: "You learned your lesson; time to leave."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a story, which I don't believe but it was told as a true story. The story goes that there is a compartment of Hell called "Thieves Hell" and it is a place where thieves go. (There is a theory of Hell that you go to a compartment of Hell with people who have the same code of ethics you have.) This guy was in Thieves Hell and everybody stole from everybody else. One day he decided that this is a crazy way to live and he is not going to do it any more. A bit later, 2 mysterious men appeared and said: "You learned your lesson; time to leave."

Those two expressed an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not up to us, as you know. Rather, the burden is with you.

You probably do know that this is an old argument, attributed to David Hume, that one cannot derive an "ought" from an "is." Arguing against that, you must know about "Fact and Value" by Leonard Peikoff. It is a short enough piece that you cannot reasonably claim not to be able to read it. Moreover, while reseaching works of and about Ayn Rand, I found nearby, this: The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy by Hilary Putnam (Harvard, 2002). Putnam begins by showing the Fact/Value dichotomy to be an extension of the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Lest this seem too familiar, she has no index listing for Peikoff. She dismisses Ayn Rand as a popular but shallow "philosophizer" specifically refusing to call Rand a philosopher. Just to say, this is now mainstream academic philosophy, and not limited to Ayn Rand's collective.

Call it doxa and logos if you wish, but you are the one with something to prove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a story, which I don't believe but it was told as a true story. The story goes that there is a compartment of Hell called "Thieves Hell" and it is a place where thieves go. (There is a theory of Hell that you go to a compartment of Hell with people who have the same code of ethics you have.) This guy was in Thieves Hell and everybody stole from everybody else. One day he decided that this is a crazy way to live and he is not going to do it any more. A bit later, 2 mysterious men appeared and said: "You learned your lesson; time to leave."

Those two expressed an opinion.

Opinions are like ass holes; everyone has one. My ass hole opinion is what I thought was suggested by the story. A correct code of ethics is one that if everybody lived by it, the world would be a good world to live in. And a bad code of ethics is one that if everybody lived by it, the world would be a bad world to live in. Then I guess you can talk about what kind of world you would like to live in. Maybe different people would have different preferences for a world to live in, but probably there is much in common to 99.99% of these preferences. For more information, see Stefan Molyneux's theory of universally preferable behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say that Ethics is doxa, not logos. now prove that I am mistaken.

Ethics is the code you conduct yourself by when there's nobody around to see - and

equally when there is.

(Prove me wrong...)

Still based on opinion and judgement. Not derivable from physical law or necessary logical truth such as the principle of non-contradiction. Try again....

No, you made the judgement of doxa. I'm being generally definitive, I thought.

Physical law? let's see.

So, it is self-evident that a single man or woman is an incomplete organism, a part of a composite.

Each part of the whole is inter-dependent on all other parts. We breathe, eat and digest - one for all, all for one.

One's pain and joy, is everyone's. As the whole organism cogitates and acquires knowledge, so does each insignificant part.

You didn't think that, dream that, or make that. It was the collective.

Each action then, must benefit the whole, no matter the cost to the single entity.

Only the survival of the greater number is valid and valuable. This we accomplish with our spiritual and mental connectedness and enforced love of our brothers.

The greatest evil is to hold one's life as important; the second is the vanity of individual volition.

From the undeniable facts of reality and man's nature, we can deduce a rational ethics - I (humbly) call it rational altruism.

It's obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the undeniable facts of reality and man's nature, we can deduce a rational ethics - I (humbly) call it rational altruism.

It's obvious.

Then why is there such a variety of ethical codes and systems among the various kiths and kins of mankind?

Ethics is convention and doxa, not logos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...while reseaching works of and about Ayn Rand, I found nearby, this: The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy by Hilary Putnam (Harvard, 2002). Putnam begins by showing the Fact/Value dichotomy to be an extension of the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Lest this seem too familiar, she has no index listing for Peikoff. She dismisses Ayn Rand as a popular but shallow "philosophizer" specifically refusing to call Rand a philosopher. Just to say, this is now mainstream academic philosophy, and not limited to Ayn Rand's collective...

Hilary Putnam is a guy.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Hilary_Putnam.jpg/220px-Hilary_Putnam.jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Putnam&h=250&w=176&sz=1&tbnid=ddktizk5DfRtnM:&tbnh=186&tbnw=130&zoom=1&usg=__1DVyNofK2SfJKgLSE5wBRig9Yvg=&docid=SVOriEYGyaFsfM&itg=1&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6TFyUc3_EMbW2AWe8IH4CA&sqi=2&ved=0CJQBEPwdMAohttp://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Hilary_Putnam.jpg/220px-Hilary_Putnam.jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Putnam&h=250&w=176&sz=1&tbnid=ddktizk5DfRtnM:&tbnh=186&tbnw=130&zoom=1&usg=__1DVyNofK2SfJKgLSE5wBRig9Yvg=&docid=SVOriEYGyaFsfM&itg=1&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6TFyUc3_EMbW2AWe8IH4CA&sqi=2&ved=0CJQBEPwdMAo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he greatest evil is to hold one's life as important; the second is the vanity of individual volition.

From the undeniable facts of reality and man's nature, we can deduce a rational ethics - I (humbly) call it rational altruism.

It's obvious.

No you can't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He just started a conversation where he made an assertion with no evidence or argumentation to back it up, and then demanded that others prove his idea wrong.

This is basically trolling, and I don't know why you guys are even putting up with it.

Trolling eh? How do you account for the variety of ethical codes and principle all over the world and through time?

1 + 1 = 2 everywhere. But the definition of good and evil, proper and improper varies through space and time. If ethics could be -deduced- from an axiomatic basis how do you account for this? The question is fair and you have no answer. Some trolling. Right.

Like I said. Doxa. NOT Logos. Now answer the question that I raised, if you can.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the undeniable facts of reality and man's nature, we can deduce a rational ethics - I (humbly) call it rational altruism.

It's obvious.

Then why is there such a variety of ethical codes and systems among the various kiths and kins of mankind?

Ethics is convention and doxa, not logos.

Neither. False dichotomy. An individual has no need for the traditionally accepted, majority ethics to live by - nor a trumped-up, rationalized, pseudo- logically 'proven' ethics. His morality stems from man's nature, of what he needs (or doesn't) and what he is capable (or isn't). "Good and evil" are consequences of those. End of story.

Still awaiting your proof of 'doxa', and why the archaic status quo is correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He just started a conversation where he made an assertion with no evidence or argumentation to back it up, and then demanded that others prove his idea wrong.

This is basically trolling, and I don't know why you guys are even putting up with it.

Trolling eh? How do you account for the variety of ethical codes and principle all over the world and through time?

1 + 1 = 2 everywhere. But the definition of good and evil, proper and improper varies through space and time. If ethics could be -deduced- from an axiomatic basis how do you account for this? The question is fair and you have no answer. Some trolling. Right.

Like I said. Doxa. NOT Logos. Now answer the question that I raised, if you can.

Ba'al Chatzaf

No, you want us to dance around trying to convince you of something that you already have decided against. You didn't raise any question in your OP, you just asserted stuff and asked us to prove you wrong.

Just because something is controversial, does not mean that there isn't a correct answer. That doesn't follow.

If anything you should start by referencing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_morals . Or maybe you should be talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_functionalism.

As it has been pointed out, you have the burden of proof, not anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He just started a conversation where he made an assertion with no evidence or argumentation to back it up, and then demanded that others prove his idea wrong.

This is basically trolling, and I don't know why you guys are even putting up with it.

Trolling eh? How do you account for the variety of ethical codes and principle all over the world and through time?

1 + 1 = 2 everywhere. But the definition of good and evil, proper and improper varies through space and time. If ethics could be -deduced- from an axiomatic basis how do you account for this? The question is fair and you have no answer. Some trolling. Right.

Like I said. Doxa. NOT Logos. Now answer the question that I raised, if you can.

Ba'al Chatzaf

No, you want us to dance around trying to convince you of something that you already have decided against. You didn't raise any question in your OP, you just asserted stuff and asked us to prove you wrong.

Just because something is controversial, does not mean that there isn't a correct answer. That doesn't follow.

If anything you should start by referencing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_morals . Or maybe you should be talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_functionalism.

As it has been pointed out, you have the burden of proof, not anyone else.

In that case I am done. Ethics cannot be derived from either physics or mathematics. There is nothing in the -physical- universe that entails a system of ethics. Ethics, like language and custom is convention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He just started a conversation where he made an assertion with no evidence or argumentation to back it up, and then demanded that others prove his idea wrong.

This is basically trolling, and I don't know why you guys are even putting up with it.

Trolling eh? How do you account for the variety of ethical codes and principle all over the world and through time?

1 + 1 = 2 everywhere. But the definition of good and evil, proper and improper varies through space and time. If ethics could be -deduced- from an axiomatic basis how do you account for this? The question is fair and you have no answer. Some trolling. Right.

Like I said. Doxa. NOT Logos. Now answer the question that I raised, if you can.

Ba'al Chatzaf

No, you want us to dance around trying to convince you of something that you already have decided against. You didn't raise any question in your OP, you just asserted stuff and asked us to prove you wrong.

Just because something is controversial, does not mean that there isn't a correct answer. That doesn't follow.

If anything you should start by referencing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_morals . Or maybe you should be talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_functionalism.

As it has been pointed out, you have the burden of proof, not anyone else.

In that case I am done. Ethics cannot be derived from either physics or mathematics. There is nothing in the -physical- universe that entails a system of ethics. Ethics, like language and custom is convention.

Ethics is (or are). Your post cannot be derived from physics or mathematics either. Your post is your custom and convention. That's accepting your premises as stated. Ethics appertain to human nature. Human nature appertains to human beings appertains to a physicality generating consciousness of a certain sort. Etc.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He just started a conversation where he made an assertion with no evidence or argumentation to back it up, and then demanded that others prove his idea wrong.

This is basically trolling, and I don't know why you guys are even putting up with it.

Trolling eh? How do you account for the variety of ethical codes and principle all over the world and through time?

1 + 1 = 2 everywhere. But the definition of good and evil, proper and improper varies through space and time. If ethics could be -deduced- from an axiomatic basis how do you account for this? The question is fair and you have no answer. Some trolling. Right.

Like I said. Doxa. NOT Logos. Now answer the question that I raised, if you can.

Ba'al Chatzaf

No, you want us to dance around trying to convince you of something that you already have decided against. You didn't raise any question in your OP, you just asserted stuff and asked us to prove you wrong.

Just because something is controversial, does not mean that there isn't a correct answer. That doesn't follow.

If anything you should start by referencing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_morals . Or maybe you should be talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_functionalism.

As it has been pointed out, you have the burden of proof, not anyone else.

In that case I am done. Ethics cannot be derived from either physics or mathematics. There is nothing in the -physical- universe that entails a system of ethics. Ethics, like language and custom is convention.

You are doing exactly what I am talking about. You are making assertions with no arguments or evidence.

At least borrow argument from the people who came up with these ideas.

Here is a helpful article.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral/#PreAgaMorSke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he greatest evil is to hold one's life as important; the second is the vanity of individual volition.

From the undeniable facts of reality and man's nature, we can deduce a rational ethics - I (humbly) call it rational altruism.

It's obvious.

No you can't

If you'd put your goldfish in a cage and your pet gerbil in an aquarium, would it be a. illogical? b. non-conformist?

Neither one - at first order of priority. It would be life-defeating. It would be antithetical to their existential nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he greatest evil is to hold one's life as important; the second is the vanity of individual volition.

From the undeniable facts of reality and man's nature, we can deduce a rational ethics - I (humbly) call it rational altruism.

It's obvious.

No you can't

If you'd put your goldfish in a cage and your pet gerbil in an aquarium, would it be a. illogical? b. non-conformist?

Neither one - at first order of priority. It would be life-defeating. It would be antithetical to their existential nature.

What if I happen to like torturing gold fish and gerbils?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quit feeding the troll. He has been banned from other forums for this stuff.

Watch, he has still not even attempted to justify his statements and he is still posting.

Quite harsh, I believe. This poster is something of an institution at OL, and as much as he can be mischievous, incendiary and downright infuriating - I kind of like the cuss. A force of nature. He'll tell you he'd nuke the M. East if he could, but I sense he's a man who'd weep over a photo of a dead child. Basically, a mensch. Anyway, when he knows what he's talking about you learn something, but when he throws out his craftily contentious contra-O'ist assertions, in refuting them you learn something too. Win- win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quit feeding the troll. He has been banned from other forums for this stuff.

Watch, he has still not even attempted to justify his statements and he is still posting.

Quite harsh, I believe. This poster is something of an institution at OL, and as much as he can be mischievous, incendiary and downright infuriating - I kind of like the cuss. A force of nature. He'll tell you he'd nuke the M. East if he could, but I sense he's a man who'd weep over a photo of a dead child. Basically, a mensch. Anyway, when he knows what he's talking about you learn something, but when he throws out his craftily contentious contra-O'ist assertions, in refuting them you learn something too. Win- win.

Yeah I saw his post count. All that says is that the people on this forum are really tolerant.

I am still waiting for him to say anything, much less something he knows about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now