Moral Certainty

[Selene]

GS:

they do so because the most common meaning of the terms 'ethics' and 'morality' are strictly in a social setting. It isn't rocket science

It sounds like you got yourself some North Korean rocket science there...

How do you come up with all those brief video clips on the spot? Do you search YouTube each time, or do you already have a collection of links to clips that you use as needed?

Ghs

Lol.

Both. I had an image in mind and just used Eboolian [however the hell you spell it] search terms. I run my searches through dogpile. I ran rocket fails gifs and got that result.

And this one which is a real "gif" image.

That one I stuck in an e-mail for myself and filed it for future use.

It is the way I learned to research and reason. Teaching rhetoric made it an even better system.

Adam

[tjohnson]

People tend to confound ethics with social intercourse. Perhaps one reason is that human "rights" appear to be applicable only within groups of people, and rights are founded on morals. Whatever, I don't precisely know why people err in assuming that ethics are only applicable in groups and therefore irrelevant on a desert island.

they do so because the most common meaning of the terms 'ethics' and 'morality' are strictly in a social setting. It isn't rocket science

Funny, but I can't find that stipulation in either the Merriam-Webster or Random House dictionaries. Instead, in the entry for "ethics" in MW, we find:

"the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group" (my emphasis).

Whatever happened to your reverence for dictionaries?

Ghs

And here is the full entry from M-W

1 plural but sing or plural in constr : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

2 a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> <an old-fashioned work ethic> —often used in plural but singular or plural in construction <an elaborate ethics> <Christian ethics> b plural but sing or plural in constr : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> c : a guiding philosophy d : a consciousness of moral importance <forge a conservation ethic>

3 plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness) <debated the ethics of human cloning>

Notice the 1st definition which George conveniently omitted. In most definitions of ethics we find reference to morals and vice versa - the two are closely related and they refer to how we humans should behave toward each other. If Rand wanted to create a system for how individual can achieve their goals and be creative individualists, that's great, but why call it 'morality'? This takes nothing away from her work it only calls into question the classification of it.

Here is more;

• ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong
• the philosophical study of moral values and rules
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality; that is, about concepts like good and bad, right and wrong, justice, virtue, etc.
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

[George H. Smith]

People tend to confound ethics with social intercourse. Perhaps one reason is that human "rights" appear to be applicable only within groups of people, and rights are founded on morals. Whatever, I don't precisely know why people err in assuming that ethics are only applicable in groups and therefore irrelevant on a desert island.

they do so because the most common meaning of the terms 'ethics' and 'morality' are strictly in a social setting. It isn't rocket science

Funny, but I can't find that stipulation in either the Merriam-Webster or Random House dictionaries. Instead, in the entry for "ethics" in MW, we find:

"the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group" (my emphasis).

Whatever happened to your reverence for dictionaries?

Ghs

And here is the full entry from M-W

1 plural but sing or plural in constr : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

2 a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> <an old-fashioned work ethic> —often used in plural but singular or plural in construction <an elaborate ethics> <Christian ethics> b plural but sing or plural in constr : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> c : a guiding philosophy d : a consciousness of moral importance <forge a conservation ethic>

3 plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness) <debated the ethics of human cloning>

Notice the 1st definition which George conveniently omitted. In most definitions of ethics we find reference to morals and vice versa - the two are closely related and they refer to how we humans should behave toward each other. If Rand wanted to create a system for how individual can achieve their goals and be creative individualists, that's great, but why call it 'morality'? This takes nothing away from her work it only calls into question the classification of it.

Here is more;

• ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong
• the philosophical study of moral values and rules
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality; that is, about concepts like good and bad, right and wrong, justice, virtue, etc.
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

The first definition says nothing about ethics or morality applying only in a social context. Trying posting something relevant next time.

Ghs

[tjohnson]

The first definition says nothing about ethics or morality applying only in a social context. Trying posting something relevant next time.

Well what do suppose 'good' and 'bad' mean? How can a person on a deserted island be 'good' or 'bad'? Does he say to himself "you've been a bad boy so you have to punished"?

[George H. Smith]

GS posted this link to the Wiki article on "ethics":

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

Here is part of what that article says about Aristotle:

"Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) posited an ethical system that may be termed "self-realizationism." In Aristotle's view, when a person acts in accordance with his nature and realizes his full potential, he will do good and be content. At birth, a baby is not a person, but a potential person. In order to become a "real" person, the child's inherent potential must be realized. Unhappiness and frustration are caused by the unrealized potential of a person, leading to failed goals and a poor life. Aristotle said, "Nature does nothing in vain." Therefore, it is imperative for persons to act in accordance with their nature and develop their latent talents, in order to be content and complete. Happiness was held to be the ultimate goal. All other things, such as civic life or wealth, are merely means to the end. Self-realization, the awareness of one's nature and the development of one's talents, is the surest path to happiness.[2]"

This self-realization approach, which posits happiness as man's ultimate goal, is very similar to Rand's.

This view of ethics would apply to a solitary person. Although Aristotle believed that social life is necessary to fully realize one's potential -- a position I agree with -- it is also the case that a solitary individual would need to make decisions about which actions would best promote his self-realization in the limited circumstances in which he finds himself. Those actions which promote this goal would be "good," and those which retard it would be "bad."

This confirms a point I made earlier: Rand's approach falls within a major tradition in ethics -- perhaps the most influential tradition in the history of western thought.

Either GS did not read the article he linked, or he did not understand what he read.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

The first definition says nothing about ethics or morality applying only in a social context. Trying posting something relevant next time.

Well what do suppose 'good' and 'bad' mean? How can a person on a deserted island be 'good' or 'bad'? Does he say to himself "you've been a bad boy so you have to punished"?

A solitary person can take actions that are good for him, and he can take actions that are bad for him. In various forms, such as the self-realization ethics that I discussed in my last post, this has been standard ethical fare for 2500 years.

Ghs

[Selene]

George:

I am still amazed that folks have a difficult issue with the dessert island example.

As you pointed out, drawing the concept back to Aristotelian concepts is accepted by me, Ayn and if we could dig up the old Greek, he would say smart girl that Ayn.

Seriously, excellent argument.

Congratulations GS on Canada's Gold Medal - beating the USA 3-2 in over time.

Adam

[9thdoctor]

A solitary person can take actions that are good for him, and he can take actions that are bad for him. In various forms, such as the self-realization ethics that I discussed in my last post, this has been standard ethical fare for 2500 years.

The talk Philosophy Who Needs It? opens with a good discussion of this question, I should dig it out. I’m pretty sure the letter to Spassky is in that volume too, and I’m not fresh on the metaphysical implications of chess, as George pointed out earlier (yesterday I think). Nah fuck it, I'm going to have another beer. Bitte ein Bit!

[9thdoctor]

I am still amazed that folks have a difficult issue with the dessert island example.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be stuck on appetizer island. Tapas!

[Selene]

I am still amazed that folks have a difficult issue with the dessert island example.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be stuck on appetizer island. Tapas!

OUCH!

I make that error much too often!

Thanks

Adam

[George H. Smith]

I am still amazed that folks have a difficult issue with the dessert island example.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be stuck on appetizer island. Tapas!

OUCH!

I make that error much too often!

Thanks

Adam

At least your error didn't end up in a book that you have to live with for the rest of your life. I wasn't as fortunate with Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies.

I submitted the final draft of that book shortly before I moved from Hollywood to Long Beach, and when Prometheus sent me the page proofs for final corrections and proofing, I was still busy moving into my new digs. I didn't have much time to return the proofs, so I did a quick read-through, assuming that a competent copy-editor would catch most of the major typos, omitted words, etc. (I was never any good at proofing my own writing anyway.)

Boy, was that a mistake. That book contains typos galore. (Almost all of my communication with my editor had to do with politically correct pronouns.) One typo in particular pissed me off at the time, though I later found it amusing.

A sentence in "Defining Atheism" was supposed to read:

"As we have seen, this positive definition of atheism is not the most common one, nor the traditional one -- not, that is, if we consult what most atheists have really said rather than listen to uninformed critics who tell us what atheists should have said."

The published version, however, reads: "...rather than listen to uniformed critics...."

I am still curious what kind of uniform critics of atheism wear.

[Selene]

Lol.

Well George, step anywhere near any D/s or BDSM community club and you will find plenty of uniform kink! There has got to be an a - theist in the group.

Adam

[tjohnson]

This self-realization approach, which posits happiness as man's ultimate goal, is very similar to Rand's.

Unfortunately this shifts the problem to 'happiness'. How can we agree on a system to achieve happiness if we don't have agreement on what 'happiness' refers to?

[Brant Gaede]

This self-realization approach, which posits happiness as man's ultimate goal, is very similar to Rand's.

Unfortunately this shifts the problem to 'happiness'. How can we agree on a system to achieve happiness if we don't have agreement on what 'happiness' refers to?

Well, guy, it's all about liberty for "the pursuit of happiness." If you don't "achieve" it that's your problem, unless you decide to solve your problem by taking away my ability to pursue it.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

Well, guy, it's all about liberty for "the pursuit of happiness." If you don't "achieve" it that's your problem, unless you decide to solve your problem by taking away my ability to pursue it.

Well, that's not an issue on a deserted island is it? It is, however, an issue in a social context, where I fully agree.

[George H. Smith]

This self-realization approach, which posits happiness as man's ultimate goal, is very similar to Rand's.

Unfortunately this shifts the problem to 'happiness'. How can we agree on a system to achieve happiness if we don't have agreement on what 'happiness' refers to?

I haven't shifted anything. The problem we were discussing was whether or not ethics, as traditionally conceived, would apply to a solitary individual. It clearly would.

The nature of happiness is a problem that arises within the discipline of ethics. It has nothing to do with the problem of the solitary individual that we were discussing.

Why is it such a big deal for you to admit that you were mistaken in this instance? Maybe you need to get another map -- one that comes with instructions on how to use it.

Ghs

[tjohnson]

I haven't shifted anything. The problem we were discussing was whether or not ethics, as traditionally conceived, would apply to a solitary individual. It clearly would.

I disagree. One's pursuit of happiness on a deserted island is an entirely individual affair. He is free to do whatever he pleases and so it makes no sense to talk about codes of conduct or whatnot. I don't really care if ethics was traditionally conceived this way or not, but I find it ill-conceived nevertheless.

[Brant Gaede]

Well, guy, it's all about liberty for "the pursuit of happiness." If you don't "achieve" it that's your problem, unless you decide to solve your problem by taking away my ability to pursue it.

Well, that's not an issue on a deserted island is it? It is, however, an issue in a social context, where I fully agree.

Oh, that damn island again. I was rescued a while back and now I'm happy.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

I haven't shifted anything. The problem we were discussing was whether or not ethics, as traditionally conceived, would apply to a solitary individual. It clearly would.

I disagree. One's pursuit of happiness on a deserted island is an entirely individual affair. He is free to do whatever he pleases and so it makes no sense to talk about codes of conduct or whatnot. I don't really care if ethics was traditionally conceived this way or not, but I find it ill-conceived nevertheless.

Whether or not the notion of a solitary ethics is "ill-conceived" is something that moral philosophers have debated for a long time.

But this issue differs from the crux of our debate. Earlier, you claimed that anyone who talks about a solitary ethics is using the term "ethics" in a highly idiosyncratic way. That's not true at all, as illustrated by the very influential Aristotelian tradition.

You may disagree with a particular moral theory, but that doesn't make it a nonmoral theory.

Ghs

[tjohnson]

As far as I'm concerned, 'solitary ethics' is a contradiction in terms. If philosophers want argue about that for another couple thousand years they are free to do so.

[Selene]

GS:

"He is free to do whatever he pleases and so it makes no sense to talk about codes of conduct or whatnot."

"...to do whatever he pleases..."

"Pleases" appears to be directly connected to pleasure which the way I do pleasure, leads to happiness.

Do you mean something else?

Adam

[Dragonfly]

I disagree. One's pursuit of happiness on a deserted island is an entirely individual affair. He is free to do whatever he pleases and so it makes no sense to talk about codes of conduct or whatnot. I don't really care if ethics was traditionally conceived this way or not, but I find it ill-conceived nevertheless.

Yup. It's the old equivocation of "good" in the sense of "efficient for the purpose" and "morally good". A thief can be quite good and successful in his job and in his life, but most people wouldn't say that he's morally good. A word like "evil" has no such ambiguity, it's clearly a term with a moral and not a utilitarian connotation. It's however absurd to say that the man on the desert island is behaving in an evil way if he isn't an efficient survivor. That some moral systems want to infringe on the purely personal actions that don't concern anyone else is good reason to reject them forcefully. Such systems are not content with the role of a traffic cop in society, they're after your soul as well. In spite of all the grandiose lip service to individuality, the last thing they really want is an independent mind. It's therefore no surprise that such systems breed cults. That nice scene from Brian comes to mind: "You're all individuals!" "Yes we're all individuals!" "You're all different!". "Yes, we are all different!"

[tjohnson]

"Pleases" appears to be directly connected to pleasure which the way I do pleasure, leads to happiness.

Do you mean something else?

Adam

So do you have a code of conduct that you use to attain your happiness? I just had a thought, there is one sort of "code of conduct" that might apply on a deserted island and that is coming up with ways of keeping your sanity, perhaps fighting off depression etc. Of course this would all depend on the individual, some might be prone to it and lose the will to live etc.

[Dragonfly]

Some people get a lot of pleasure out of murder. They must be very moral.

[Selene]

Some people get a lot of pleasure out of murder. They must be very moral.

DG:

Very nice!

LOL

Some pigs are smarter than others!

So, do we decide who is the most moral by an objective standard? Using your murder example. Is it most kills over time? Total number?

We must have standards you know.

Adam