Ethical Facts: Do they exist?


BaalChatzaf

Recommended Posts

Can any ethical principle be derived from the material nature of the cosmos?

Can any ethical principle by derived from our material, organic biological makeup?

Is there such a thing as an ethical fact?

In what what does Nature "care" whether we are good or not?

Or is ethics and morality a matter of convention and protocol?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Can any ethical principle be derived from the material nature of the cosmos?

Can any ethical principle by derived from our material, organic biological makeup?

Is there such a thing as an ethical fact?

In what what does Nature "care" whether we are good or not?

Or is ethics and morality a matter of convention and protocol?

Ba'al Chatzaf

If "ethics and morality are a matter of convention and protocol" then that's an ethical fact.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

One question that is constantly begged with these kinds of questions is that ethics does not exist for inanimate matter. Ethics only exists for human life and this concept is a form of "value," which only exists for living beings, meaning that ethics falls under value category-wise.

Within that scope, you certainly can derive ethics from facts. This means that value derives from the relationship between agent and thing, and that relationship derives from the two identities.

There is no way to have ethics without humans. That is a stolen concept.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If "ethics and morality are a matter of convention and protocol" then that's an ethical fact.

--Brant

That statement is about ethics, hence it is not ethical principle but meta-ethical description of ethics Please keep careful track of the level of abstraction. A description is not the thing described. A map is not the territory. A portrait is not the subject of the portrait.

Ethics is not structured to be self referential. Ethics pertains to choices and goals, not to statements about how choices and goals are formulated (as in "convention and protocol"). If Ethics were somehow self-referential it might be possible to get a Go"del type ethical-incompleteness theorem. That would be a pretty mess!

There are (possibly) ethical facts and certainly facts about ethics. The existence of ethical facts, as I see it, is an open question. Ethics is not axiomatic, since I see no self evident ethical principles or are there any ethical rules whose denial implies a contradiction in logic or even in ethical behavior. Perhaps I am mistaken in this.

Please aim at the main point of my questions: what in nature or in our organic biological makeup implies an ethical system. That is the main question. In my opinion there is nothing in nature which specifies an ethical system uniquely. There are physical facts and facts about out organic makeup that constrain possible ethical systems. Constraint is not determination.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

One question that is constantly begged with these kinds of questions is that ethics does not exist for inanimate matter. Ethics only exists for human life and this concept is a form of "value," which only exists for living beings, meaning that ethics falls under value category-wise.

Within that scope, you certainly can derive ethics from facts. This means that value derives from the relationship between agent and thing, and that relationship derives from the two identities.

There is no way to have ethics without humans. That is a stolen concept.

Michael

Indeed. Now given that there are humans with such and such an organic nature, is the ethical system that they live by uniquely determined? That is my question. If there is no unique determination and there can be two ethical systems that it is possible for humans to live by, what would make one better or "more ethical" than the other? Proceed to derive an ethical system uniquely from human biological fact. I really have to see this with my own eyes. Does our genome determine the ethics we should live by? If you could prove that, you have a sure date in Stockholm.

Ba'alk Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

Sure. That's easy.

We have to find food to eat, or else we die. If we lose our rational faculty, we will not procure food. So we have to use reason to eat. (Either that, or be cared for by—or take from—one who has used his reason.) That's about as universally ethical as you can get, and it is derived from fact.

Since human beings are complicated owing to volition and high-level abstractions, the details of ethics are variable. But the fundamentals are the same for everyone. If you don't get certain values, you die. Fact.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please aim at the main point of my questions: what in nature or in our organic biological makeup implies an ethical system. That is the main question. In my opinion there is nothing in nature which specifies an ethical system uniquely. There are physical facts and facts about out organic makeup that constrain possible ethical systems. Constraint is not determination.

Our big brains "imply"?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. Now given that there are humans with such and such an organic nature, is the ethical system that they live by uniquely determined?

Yes, it is uniquely determined by reality. Reality can be a real bitch for subjectivists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Do ethical facts exist?"

If one, by 'fact,' requires that an ethical fact be a correct proposition exclusively about something within the outside world pertaining to a mind-independent property called 'value,' then no.

Value is not fully mind-independent in the classical sense. It is not a substance. It is an abstraction abstracted from situations unique to the human condition.

So hence, we come to a dillemma... is it possible for something to be in some way dependent (or contingent, or related to, or basically have something to do with, etc) on consciousness without being actively created by consciousness? I would allege so. If the only way something could be related to consciousness was by being created by consciousness, then how could there be facts about consciousness? There go the disciplines of psychology and cognition.

But then again, most people here know that the above is a discussion of the problems with intrinsicism, so I dont need to elaborate more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is uniquely determined by reality. Reality can be a real bitch for subjectivists.

Determined by reality alone?

Be careful here, we dont want to slide into intrinsicism. Remember that although reality is real, Objectivist ethics have to deal with facts about the human condition (which are not mind-independent in the traditional sense) and not just facts about the metaphysical. There is also the premoral choice!

When we use terms like "objective" we have to remember that we are using it in an unorthodox manner. Im thinking one day of doing an "Academese to Objectivese Dictionary."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be careful here, we dont want to slide into intrinsicism

Be careful here, we don't want to get confused about intrinsicism. If you stop eating, you will cease to exist. This is not intrinsicism, but metaphysical realtiy.

Edited by Jody Gomez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be careful here, we dont want to slide into intrinsicism

Be careful here, we don't want to get confused about intrinsicism. If you stop eating, you will cease to exist. This is not intrinsicism, but metaphysical realtiy.

It is a fact, but it is a fact that is related to the human condition. Im simply trying to highlight how the traditional 'objective/subjective' split ignores the idea of facts about people.

As for the Cure, I have heard them, but Im not too fussed over them. I am of the dark electro side of the goth scene, so although The Cure are held in high regard, they arent really my 'thing' per se. I dont mind them however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I

t is a fact, but it is a fact that is related to the human condition.

Facts are facts. Reality is reality regardless of "condition". A fact that is "related to the human condition." is at best a truism.

The Cure is my favorite. Although Robert has iterated over, and over that they are not a "goth" band, I thought we might have something in common. You should listen to anything from the Disintegration album. I take recommendations as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I
t is a fact, but it is a fact that is related to the human condition.

Facts are facts. Reality is reality regardless of "condition". A fact that is "related to the human condition." is at best a truism.

The Cure is my favorite. Although Robert has iterated over, and over that they are not a "goth" band, I thought we might have something in common. You should listen to anything from the Disintegration album. I take recommendations as well.

As for recommendations, try "Tactical Neural Implant" and "Hard Wired" by Front Line Assembly, they are albums of heavy, dark and complex but still melodic and accessible Industrial-Electro. If you also want something a little more trance-oriented, try "Empires" by VNV Nation and "Serenity Is The Devil" by Icon of Coil. If you want something that is stronger on the 'dark and evil' then "Signos de Aberracion" by Hocico and "Mindstrip" by Suicide Commando are good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please aim at the main point of my questions: what in nature or in our organic biological makeup implies an ethical system. That is the main question. In my opinion there is nothing in nature which specifies an ethical system uniquely. There are physical facts and facts about out organic makeup that constrain possible ethical systems. Constraint is not determination.

Our big brains "imply"?

--Brant

Is more than one Ethical System (i.e. at least two Ethical Systems neither of which is logically derivable from the other ) possible? If have already shown in another posting any Ethical System which can be consistently practiced and not lead to death and extinction is constrained by the physical nature of the cosmos and by our organic biological nature. But this is not the same as being determined by nature. If more than one Ethical System consistent with the physical nature of the cosmos is possible (i.e. can be practiced without destroying or making extinct those who practice it) then how could one say that one system is better than the other. On what grounds? Why is one system preferable to the other? On what grounds?

Facts are what is. One fact is not preferable to another. All facts are equally facts. Are ethical systems factually determined or are they merely factually constrained (as all things are).

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is more than one Ethical System (i.e. at least two Ethical Systems neither of which is logically derivable from the other ) possible? If have already shown in another posting any Ethical System which can be consistently practiced and not lead to death and extinction is constrained by the physical nature of the cosmos and by our organic biological nature. But this is not the same as being determined by nature. If more than one Ethical System consistent with the physical nature of the cosmos is possible (i.e. can be practiced without destroying or making extinct those who practice it) then how could one say that one system is better than the other. On what grounds? Why is one system preferable to the other? On what grounds?

Facts are what is. One fact is not preferable to another. All facts are equally facts. Are ethical systems factually determined or are they merely factually constrained (as all things are).

You seem to be arguing against abstract knowledge as such: Where is the man in a man?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

X

You seem to be arguing against abstract knowledge as such: Where is the man in a man?

--Brant

In your head, along with all the other abstractions you have. Universals are brain farts. There are only particulars.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can any ethical principle be derived from the material nature of the cosmos?

Can any ethical principle by derived from our material, organic biological makeup?

Is there such a thing as an ethical fact?

In what what does Nature "care" whether we are good or not?

Or is ethics and morality a matter of convention and protocol?

1) From reality yes, if that's what you mean by "material nature of the cosmos."

2)Yes, if by "our material, organic biological makeup" you mean reality.

3)I'm not sure I understand back to back "what"'s, but who gives a shit what nature thinks. I always said that

"nature" was nothing but reality anyway. Reality always gets its way. It has no need for caring.

4)Many people treat ethics as a matter of convention. They refuse to think. However, this has nothing to do with a correct ethics. Many people, and many conventions can and are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

X

You seem to be arguing against abstract knowledge as such: Where is the man in a man?

--Brant

In your head, along with all the other abstractions you have. Universals are brain farts. There are only particulars.

You seem to love them, obviously. For a dog or cat--and I have and love them both--your statement is true, along with all non-human life we know of. If you were only a dog or a cat, I wouldn't like you; I expect more from a person.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to love them, obviously. For a dog or cat--and I have and love them both--your statement is true, along with all non-human life we know of. If you were only a dog or a cat, I wouldn't like you; I expect more from a person.

--Brant

Persons are just another variety of walking meat. To see what we -really are-, dig up a grave. We have an advanced kind of brain. Our brain farts are fancy farts compared to those of a chimp or a cat.

Ba'al Chatzaf

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