Ethics IS a part of Philosophy ...

[durangodawood]

Yes, at various levels it's still true even in a "strictly limited scope" of theological inquiry.

Unfortunately, some people, even Christian people, don't realize this fact.

I'm not sure. The essence of philosophy is some systematic reasoning. I dont think just accepting revelation qualifies.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not sure. The essence of philosophy is some systematic reasoning. I dont think just accepting revelation qualifies.

There are (at least) some branches of theology that seem to hold this pattern. The do require accepting certain unprovable premises, but once accepted, logical conclusions reasoned systematically can be derived from them.

 

[durangodawood]

There are (at least) some branches of theology that seem to hold this pattern. The do require accepting certain unprovable premises, but once accepted, logical conclusions reasoned systematically can be derived from them.

I dont think that applies to the situation I was inquiring about, which is:

....you strictly limit the scope of your inquiry to: "what does _______ divinely revealed text command us"?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I dont think that applies to the situation I was inquiring about, which is:

....you strictly limit the scope of your inquiry to: "what does _______ divinely revealed text command us"?

Perhaps not. I can't say I take the prospects of "divinely revealed text" particularly seriously. Interpreting specific commands attributed to the divine being seems a rather weak form of philosophy at best. No fundamental principles, just "it's in the book and I think the book is divine, so...".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not sure. The essence of philosophy is some systematic reasoning. I dont think just accepting revelation qualifies.

The use of some amount of philosophy is inescapable, even where Christianity or the Bible or the nature of "revelation" are concerned.

I think some of the confusion comes in that some folks think the purpose of "philosophy" is to build a worldview. But, it isn't. It's purpose is to lend us critical thinking tools in the study, evaluation and possible clarification about the nature of various aspects of life or of our humanly expressed ideas. It also may or may not be "systematic."

So, you're right. Since we can't just "accept" any form of religious revelation ipso facto without knowing what it at least partially is, then philosophy automatically comes to the fore in the process of asking questions about this when we make the choice to "do" theology or to read some ancient religious texts.

 

[Niels]

I would go further. Morality cannot be reduced to physical terms - at all. For a materialist this is tricky to say the least. And that is not all. Abstractions such as poetry, music, happiness, misery and love are irreducible to physical terms, though many materialists have tried. I think all such attempts are likely to fail.

(As a materialist myself, it is a philosophical conundrum for me. Before anyone is tempted to suggest a solution based on religion, let me just reiterate that that would take us into the realm of theology, where all these issues are resolved at once by positing one and only one answer - which I have long ago rejected!)

It seems to me that everything can be 'reduced' to data. Within this data patterns are identified and formed. From the elements to music and morality. This may be compatible with theistic and non-theistic perspectives. What patterns do we see in the data? What abstractions and conclusions might be drawn from the patterns?

More to the point of the thread, our philosophies carry an ethical component regardless. Theology included. If somebody suggests a theological solution, it too has ethical implications that can be discussed as such.

 

[Ana the Ist]

As a former student of Philosophy at the university level, it has come to my attention that there are a few folks who don't realize that the field of Ethics is actually a branch of Philosophy.

This is a fact, and one that is readily seen within the curricular structures of just about any major university. An example of such is something like Medical Ethics which I took at the university. That class was classified as a philosophy class, not merely as an "ethics" class or a "medical" class. The same was the case with my Business Ethics class. It too was a form of philosophical study, not merely pertaining to the study of "business." There are also standard classes on Ethics which usually fall under the curricular designation of, again, Philosophy, not merely "Ethics and Morality."

So, what does this mean? It means that if and when we take up the mantle of moral inquiry, we're automatically entering into and DOING PHILOSOPHY, it just happens to be 'moral philosophy." It also means that we're automatically opened up to Epistemological and Metaphysical considerations which can, and often do, overlay and are, at times, instrumental within the very conceptual structures of whichever form of Ethics or Ethical systems we are considering or evaluating. These various branches of Philosophy have overlay with one another and are not wholly separate by any stretch of the imagination.

Is there anyone here on this forum who isn't aware that Ethics is a branch of Philosophy? If not, it's time to get educated about this fact.

It's time to get this straight because I see too many instances of various people implying and/or asserting that Ethics isn't Philosophy. This shouldn't be happening and this confusion needs to come to an end.

Comments and complaints or other unjustified counter-arguments may be posted below ...


Thank you for your time!

I wasn't aware this was happening. I agree, ethics is a practical aspect of philosophy. A frustrating one too.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You're right. There isn't much to discuss about how Ethics exists as a branch of Philosophy. But there are a few folks who don't know this. It's surprising, I know.

Well let's try saying a lot about this topic anyway....

Clearly we agree that it's a branch of Philosophy and yet, I think I called it a practical philosophy not a moral one like you did....

Before we argue about that, let's see if we can find some common ground....

Would you agree that ethical behavior tends to describe a relationship between work, labor, practice, profession, endeavor, and the "doer" of those things....

While moral behavior primarily describes interpersonal social behavior regardless of circumstance or context?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not sure. The essence of philosophy is some systematic reasoning. I dont think just accepting revelation qualifies.

Axiomatic claims are found at the bottom of any view and they must be considered to even explore a possible epistemological view.

Revelation is only easy to dismiss if it is inaccessible. I dismiss it because it's inaccessible. Consider though, a hypothetical...

I send you a pm in which I describe something that will happen to you in great detail, something which sounds so absurd or out of the ordinary you think I've lost the plot. The elaborate scrutiny I give to every minute detail looks preposterous. Yet, next week, that very thing happens exactly as I have described it. When you realize it, you are befuddled, as you should be...unable to comprehend how I accessed this knowledge. Your curiosity piques, and you ask me in a pm how I gained such knowledge. My response of course, is divine revelation. It doesn't really matter how I describe my ability to access such knowledge....whether it's tea leaves or a voice in my ear....divine revelation is, at least for that moment, accessible. A possible path of knowledge would have to be considered, no?

Now...obviously, this isn't a great example. We both can probably count on no hands how many times divine revelation has been accessible to us. Yet, this is true of many kinds of knowledge. I, for example, have a decent grasp of rudimentary physics and can understand some more complicated aspects and theorems if they are described well to me. Yet I'm also fully aware of an upper echelon of esoteric physics which....may as well be magic to me. I can't really wrap my mind around the shape of an infinite object for example. I struggle to explain properly to anyone what a 4th dimension really is and how any 3 dimensional being could know. Yet I cannot simply dismiss out of hand something that specific because I have chosen not to pursue it. It's at least possible that if I dealt a great deal of time and focus on the matter....I may be able to at least peek into that upper echelon and it no longer becomes magic. In the same way, I give at least a similar possibility of a God whispering the future into my ear one day....and perhaps the pursuit of such knowledge is attainable only through some rigorous religious methodology.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well let's try saying a lot about this topic anyway....

We can try. But being the skeptic that I am, I'm not sure how far I'll get since I think the concept of 'axioms' is too simple to explain how we human beings attempt to "justify" a whole lot that passes as "self-evident" or taken for granted.

Or, I could just say that, at the very best, I'm nowhere near thinking that any kind of 'Strong Foundationalism' or Enlightenment style rationality actually captures the full gist of our situated perceptions and efforts to be rational about the nature of our common Reality. Personally, I'm anythying but a Strong Foundationalist, in fact, I've never been such. I do like Descartes "Discourse on Method." But I usually don't get much further with him than that and nearly stop with him after proceeding through only his First and Second Meditations. After that, I run on more Existential gas. I wish it could be otherwise in my mind, though.

Let's just say that there appears to me to be a lot of premises in the world regarding Ethics that many people on various sides seem wholly taken with and convinced by, but in my perception (which could very well be mistaken since I don't know everything) they're over-reaching and overplaying their supposed axiomatically grounded, enforced Ethical or Moral position. I wish I had their confidence (whether that of the Christian or the Atheist) ... but I don't. If anything, I wake up each day feeling like I have little to hang my hat on where assurance of human social reality is concerned.

Clearly we agree that it's a branch of Philosophy and yet, I think I called it a practical philosophy not a moral one like you did....

At the moment, I'm not really clear on what you've said in the previous posts, Ana. In post #47, you specifically said, "ethics is a practical aspect of philosophy." But then in post #48, it seems to me that you change the semantics a little and instead say, "I think I called it a practical philosophy not a moral one like you did...."

All that I've simply stated thus far in this thread is the usual academic classification of Ethics as a field of study: that it is a branch of Philosophy. And why did I bring this up? I did so because too many Christians knock the whole of Philosophy to the side simply because they think Paul disparages the whole of philosophy in Colossians 2:8. Maybe they're right? I don't perceive that they are. There's also the matter that the letter of Colossians is currently evaluated as "disputed" among scholars who deal with Higher Criticism of the Bible, so this too adds another contextual wrench to the whole matter.

Instead, you've implied that it is either a practical aspect of philosophy, and if this is what you indeed mean, I'm not sure it's the same as a branch, and you also implied that it's a "practical philosophy." Ethics does deal with morality; but morality is in itself another entity of classified study. If anything, Ethics is more akin to "theory" and Morality is more akin to practical application of theory. There are those moral philosophers, though, who tend to think that Ethics emerges out of practical morality ... maybe you're one of those types of thinkers, Ana?

If so, maybe you're right. Maybe Ethics does come out of "practical" moral considerations. If it does, I might be inclined to make something of Barbara J. King's evolutionary position, anthropologically speaking. But as before, on the whole, I remain not fully compelled to believe that this is the case of the philosophical make-up of Ethics.

Before we argue about that, let's see if we can find some common ground....

Would you agree that ethical behavior tends to describe a relationship between work, labor, practice, profession, endeavor, and the "doer" of those things....

As per what I've only superficially stated above, I simply don't see ethical behavior as being constituted primarily of descriptions between "work, labor, practice, profession, endeavor, and the "doer" of those things...."

If you do see it this way, well then, that's the way that you see it. I'm not going to argue against you on this since, as a skeptically inclined individual, all I can firmly say is that I don't clearly see the relationship. May be you know someting solid and tangible, clear and discernible about it all that I don't.

While moral behavior primarily describes interpersonal social behavior regardless of circumstance or context?

I think I can partially agree with this, but only to the extent that someone who thinks that "moral behavior"--as if it's some 'one, singularly identified set of beliefs about right moral conduct'-- has supposedly set out the preconditions on which they think it's based (assuming they think in Foundationalistic terms). So, I don't see thinks as being accurately described apart from "circumstance or context."

Again, I could simply be misunderstanding you, but when folks (whether Christian or Atheists) start talking to me about how they're going to assert their moral beliefs and Ethical positions APART from any one person's actual "circumstance or context," I become immediately skeptical and a bit suspicious about their respective assertions and thend to think that they employing a power play in their thinking, often a politically oriented one.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We can try. But being the skeptic that I am, I'm not sure how far I'll get since I think the concept of 'axioms' is too simple to explain how we human beings attempt to "justify" a whole lot that passes as "self-evident" or taken for granted.

We can drop em for this discussion. I'll concede to uncertainty.

Or, I could just say that, at the very best, I'm nowhere near thinking that any kind of 'Strong Foundationalism' or Enlightenment style rationality actually captures the full gist of our situated perceptions and efforts to be rational about the nature of our common Reality. Personally, I'm anythying but a Strong Foundationalist, in fact, I've never been such. I do like Descartes "Discourse on Method." But I usually don't get much further with him than that and nearly stop with him after proceeding through only his First and Second Meditations. After that, I run on more Existential gas. I wish it could be otherwise in my mind, though.

And this is why I hate philosophy lol. I swear, if I read Descartes "Discourse On Method" only to learn that he's either talking nonsense, exploring the mundane, or rewording the obvious, I'm going to be sorely disappointed. As a person who is continually interested in ideas, bumping into philosophers with nothing to say yet talk endlessly is vomit inducing.

Let's just say that there appears to me to be a lot of premises in the world regarding Ethics that many people on various sides seem wholly taken with and convinced by, but in my perception (which could very well be mistaken since I don't know everything) they're over-reaching and overplaying their supposed axiomatically grounded, enforced Ethical or Moral position. I wish I had their confidence (whether that of the Christian or the Atheist) ... but I don't. If anything, I wake up each day feeling like I have little to hang my hat on where assurance of human social reality is concerned.

Well....this is why I see the two as separate. Easy to confuse because of similar terminologies....and they both describe behavior....creating inevitable overlaps. Nonetheless, I see them as distinctly different. One can, for example, behave completely ethically yet entirely immorally. We can describe the same behavior both ways....the desire to unite the two is based in the resulting conflict of understanding the difference between the practical reality of a behavior and its moral ideal.

At the moment, I'm not really clear on what you've said in the previous posts, Ana. In post #47, you specifically said, "ethics is a practical aspect of philosophy." But then in post #48, it seems to me that you change the semantics a little and instead say, "I think I called it a practical philosophy not a moral one like you did...."

All that I've simply stated thus far in this thread is the usual academic classification of Ethics as a field of study: that it is a branch of Philosophy. And why did I bring this up? I did so because too many Christians knock the whole of Philosophy to the side simply because they think Paul disparages the whole of philosophy in Colossians 2:8. Maybe they're right? I don't perceive that they are. There's also the matter that the letter of Colossians is currently evaluated as "disputed" among scholars who deal with Higher Criticism of the Bible, so this too adds another contextual wrench to the whole matter.

I don't see my choice of words as all that different from yours. I simply cannot conceive of philosophy as a tree-like discipline lol. For what it's worth...

Definition of ASPECT

a particular status or phase in which something appears or may be regarded; appearance to the eye or mind; a particular appearance of the face : mien… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

: a particular status or phase in which something appears or may be regarded

So to reword my previous statement....

Ethics is a philosophical consideration of the practical aspects of behavior in the context of a relatively clearly defined role.

While it may seem like "relatively clearly defined role" is too nebulous...I don't know if it is. I can think of at least a few ethical frameworks I could summarize in 1 sentence. One has to consider the telos of the role and what the behaviors are done to achieve....then we can start describing the ethics. You said you studied medical ethics? I'm sure you know the hippocratic oath and several other maxims that create our modern medical profession. In other words....they tell us when doctors are doctors and when they are not. When doctors screen you for likely cancers? That's ethical. When doctors needlessly prescribe heroin pills because of some gross incentive structure that rakes in enormous profit and fuels addiction, misery, and death? Not so much a doctor anymore but perhaps more akin to a snake oil salesman or drug dealer. A charlatan.

And yes, I'm aware that even a maxim like "do no harm" can be extremely complicated.

Instead, you've implied that it is either a practical aspect of philosophy, and if this is what you indeed mean, I'm not sure it's the same as a branch,

I don't know. I've always felt that philosophical categorizations like "existentialism" were too obtuse and contain far too much overlap to be distinct. There are topics though, which are entirely practical. They are considerations that have a goal outside of mere knowledge itself. Ethical philosophy would be one...political philosophy would be another....

Of the two I've only ever really studied political philosophy, so some room would be appreciated.

and you also implied that it's a "practical philosophy." Ethics does deal with morality; but morality is in itself another entity of classified study. If anything, Ethics is more akin to "theory" and Morality is more akin to practical application of theory.

I think I just described it as the opposite. Hume's is-ought distinction between moral ideals and practical reality can be applied to behavior and though I doubt that many roles (I was searching for the word in my previous post) have an ethical framework that stands the test of time or circumstances they don't need to...we can remake them as necessary.

I happen to think that it's a significant distinction to understand the reason why moral frameworks are nearly impossible to describe but ethical frameworks are made and remade, taught, abided, and broken.

There are those moral philosophers, though, who tend to think that Ethics emerges out of practical morality ... maybe you're one of those types of thinkers, Ana?

No. I would say that in roles whether the behavior can be relatively narrowly defined in the pursuit of a goal...typically work...can have an ethical framework which not only reveals which doctors are ethical...but when they've no longer acted as doctors at all. For example, imagine am emergency room where every patient brought in...the doctor uses his knowledge of anatomy to kill. Is he even a doctor? No. He's a murderer. The knowledge, training, preparation, practice, etc have been applied entirely in the pursuit of a different sort of work. This is why "do no harm" is a defining feature of ethical doctors.

If so, maybe you're right. Maybe Ethics does come out of "practical" moral considerations.

I do think they are separate from morals....we simply wish it wasn't so. They both describe behavior, but the times when they overlap in a way we describe as good....is mere coincidence.

If it does, I might be inclined to make something of Barbara J. King's evolutionary position, anthropologically speaking. But as before, on the whole, I remain not fully compelled to believe that this is the case of the philosophical make-up of Ethics.

As per what I've only superficially stated above, I simply don't see ethical behavior as being constituted primarily of descriptions between "work, labor, practice, profession, endeavor, and the "doer" of those things...."

I rambled a bit...let's use the term role. I don't think it's the perfect term....because "father" can be described as a role...but not one I can think of an ethical framework for. I can only describe those roles in moral terms because they're without a relatively clear goal.

If you do see it this way, well then, that's the way that you see it. I'm not going to argue against you on this since, as a skeptically inclined individual, all I can firmly say is that I don't clearly see the relationship. May be you know someting solid and tangible, clear and discernible about it all that I don't.

Well here's the simplest....possibly most enduring ethical framework I can think of.

Ethics of comedy. 1. Be funny.

That's it. As a very specific type of entertainer, it's very narrowly defined, the goal being to elicit laughter from the audience...an involuntary response.

That doesn't make it easy of course. It doesn't matter if I find a comedian funny...if they elicit laughter, his goal has been ethically achieved and work is viewed as such. It wouldn't matter if you thought they were an awful immoral person saying horrible things...once they get the laughs, ethical comedian.

I think I can partially agree with this, but only to the extent that someone who thinks that "moral behavior"--as if it's some 'one, singularly identified set of beliefs about right moral conduct'-- has supposedly set out the preconditions on which they think it's based (assuming they think in Foundationalistic terms). So, I don't see thinks as being accurately described apart from "circumstance or context."

Nor do I. Even the practical aspects of philosophy are bound by pragmatic constraints.

Again, I could simply be misunderstanding you, but when folks (whether Christian or Atheists) start talking to me about how they're going to assert their moral beliefs and Ethical positions APART from any one person's actual "circumstance or context,"

Well considering I don't have any experience studying ethics and I hate philosophers generally....yet I love ideas and tearing them apart, putting them back together, and pretty much can't stop my mind from doing this about 90% of the waking day.

I have a conception of ethics, it may be wholly different from others you've heard, and as far as I know it's mine only (though it seems unlikely these thoughts were not thought before, perhaps better).

I become immediately skeptical and a bit suspicious about their respective assertions and thend to think that they employing a power play in their thinking, often a politically oriented one.

No power play here. I don't know what your conception of ethics even is apart from the idea that you related it to morality. I know I once thought about it that way, but it too quickly becomes irreconcilable and either the ethical or moral conception fails to remain cohesive.

Do you think that you could, for example, describe the ethics of a combat soldier in a way that is moral?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And this is why I hate philosophy lol. I swear, if I read Descartes "Discourse On Method" only to learn that he's either talking nonsense, exploring the mundane, or rewording the obvious, I'm going to be sorely disappointed. As a person who is continually interested in ideas, bumping into philosophers with nothing to say yet talk endlessly is vomit inducing.

Yeah, I don't think you'll find much that is vomit inducing in Descartes' Discourse. I know I don't.

Well....this is why I see the two as separate. Easy to confuse because of similar terminologies....and they both describe behavior....creating inevitable overlaps. Nonetheless, I see them as distinctly different. One can, for example, behave completely ethically yet entirely immorally. We can describe the same behavior both ways....the desire to unite the two is based in the resulting conflict of understanding the difference between the practical reality of a behavior and its moral ideal.

We apparently have a difference here regarding our repsective evaluations about how and when there is concordance between Ethics and "being moral." You're on a different playing field altogether from me, it looks like.

I don't see my choice of words as all that different from yours. I simply cannot conceive of philosophy as a tree-like discipline lol. For what it's worth...

Definition of ASPECT

a particular status or phase in which something appears or may be regarded; appearance to the eye or mind; a particular appearance of the face : mien… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Tree-like? I don't think I ever said I conceive of philosophy as "tree-like." And I'm not sure such a descriptor offers much in the way of any discernible expectation for how Epistemology (in its various forms no less) plays a role in Ethics (also in its various forms...no less).

: a particular status or phase in which something appears or may be regarded

So to reword my previous statement....

Ethics is a philosophical consideration of the practical aspects of behavior in the context of a relatively clearly defined role.

While it may seem like "relatively clearly defined role" is too nebulous...I don't know if it is. I can think of at least a few ethical frameworks I could summarize in 1 sentence. One has to consider the telos of the role and what the behaviors are done to achieve....then we can start describing the ethics. You said you studied medical ethics? I'm sure you know the hippocratic oath and several other maxims that create our modern medical profession. In other words....they tell us when doctors are doctors and when they are not. When doctors screen you for likely cancers? That's ethical. When doctors needlessly prescribe heroin pills because of some gross incentive structure that rakes in enormous profit and fuels addiction, misery, and death? Not so much a doctor anymore but perhaps more akin to a snake oil salesman or drug dealer. A charlatan.

And yes, I'm aware that even a maxim like "do no harm" can be extremely complicated.

That's a start. But there's a whole lot more to consider about the structures of Ethics on the whole if and when we're also going to bring int he comparative structures of our Epistmelogical perspectives. In fact, we should expect it to become nearly labrythine. The surprising thing is there are those in both politics and religion who seem to think all of this is simply unnecessary complication of practical matters. I'd say say evaluators are misinformed and/or negligent where justification is a concern.

I don't know. I've always felt that philosophical categorizations like "existentialism" were too obtuse and contain far too much overlap to be distinct. There are topics though, which are entirely practical. They are considerations that have a goal outside of mere knowledge itself. Ethical philosophy would be one...political philosophy would be another....

I disagree. Existentialism is a perspective; it's for those who don't see the certainties that so many other people claim that they do see. But don't concern yourself with that. Although I'm Existentialist, it isn't a position I recommend. It's more of an unfortunate default that I hope others don't fall into ...

Of the two I've only ever really studied political philosophy, so some room would be appreciated.

There's always lots of 'room' on this for everyone, I've always thought.

I think I just described it as the opposite. Hume's is-ought distinction between moral ideals and practical reality can be applied to behavior and though I doubt that many roles (I was searching for the word in my previous post) have an ethical framework that stands the test of time or circumstances they don't need to...we can remake them as necessary.

"Remake"? I'm sure you didn't mean for it to sound rather Leftist, but to 'remake' an ethical framework or system sounds a bit communistic to me.

I happen to think that it's a significant distinction to understand the reason why moral frameworks are nearly impossible to describe but ethical frameworks are made and remade, taught, abided, and broken.

If we're talking about moral 'framworks' rather than the citations of singular acts of benevolence, I think we're already doing Ethics rather than simply talking morality.

No. I would say that in roles whether the behavior can be relatively narrowly defined in the pursuit of a goal...typically work...can have an ethical framework which not only reveals which doctors are ethical...but when they've no longer acted as doctors at all. For example, imagine am emergency room where every patient brought in...the doctor uses his knowledge of anatomy to kill. Is he even a doctor? No. He's a murderer. The knowledge, training, preparation, practice, etc have been applied entirely in the pursuit of a different sort of work. This is why "do no harm" is a defining feature of ethical doctors.

There's more to it than this, really.

I do think they are separate from morals....we simply wish it wasn't so. They both describe behavior, but the times when they overlap in a way we describe as good....is mere coincidence.

This is another place in which I'll have to dissent.

Well here's the simplest....possibly most enduring ethical framework I can think of.

Ethics of comedy. 1. Be funny.

That's it. As a very specific type of entertainer, it's very narrowly defined, the goal being to elicit laughter from the audience...an involuntary response.

That doesn't make it easy of course. It doesn't matter if I find a comedian funny...if they elicit laughter, his goal has been ethically achieved and work is viewed as such. It wouldn't matter if you thought they were an awful immoral person saying horrible things...once they get the laughs, ethical comedian.

Where did you get this conception of ethics from, particularly as you've applied it to the role of a comedian?

Nor do I. Even the practical aspects of philosophy are bound by pragmatic constraints.

I think you meant to say "practical constraints" that are endemic to human limitations rather than pragmatic constraints....?

Well considering I don't have any experience studying ethics and I hate philosophers generally....yet I love ideas and tearing them apart, putting them back together, and pretty much can't stop my mind from doing this about 90% of the waking day.

Ok. Lol! ... So you hate philosophers even while our, yourself, philosophize. I see. That's an interesting paradox to live in, I suppose. How about instead saying that you disagree strongly with some philosophers, and that you may find some whom you agree with (since one philosopher isn't identical in person or ideas as another, typically)?

I have a conception of ethics, it may be wholly different from others you've heard, and as far as I know it's mine only (though it seems unlikely these thoughts were not thought before, perhaps better).

Yeah, I know. You've shared that as being the case. Mine conception of "Ethics" starts but doesn't end in the usual places: with the standard sorts of academic Ethics books.

No power play here. I don't know what your conception of ethics even is apart from the idea that you related it to morality. I know I once thought about it that way, but it too quickly becomes irreconcilable and either the ethical or moral conception fails to remain cohesive.

This we can agree on. So, there's our first point (or maybe our second) of agreement.

Do you think that you could, for example, describe the ethics of a combat soldier in a way that is moral?

Yes. But the mere act of "describing" doesn't entail a prescription or advocacy of such ethics. In other words, any of us can simply go down the list of the possible dozen or so Ethical systems and/or frameworks and attempt to identify and evaluate the "ethics of a combat solider" and end up with a menagerie of diverse views. It might also depend on what context we're talking about. There's probably some difference between the ethics involved in, say, a soldier who is "sent in" to rescue or defend a set of individuals and one who was doing the jabbing at Gautanomo Bay.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yeah, I don't think you'll find much that is vomit inducing in Descartes' Discourse. I know I don't.

Can you just give me one big takeaway before I give it a go?

What's his Kant-like contribution to the topic?

We apparently have a difference here regarding our repsective evaluations about how and when there is concordance between Ethics and "being moral." You're on a different playing field altogether from me, it looks like.

Yeah I'm on a different one from everyone....they're all self constructed and subject to change. Maybe someone has a similar view, but I've not heard it.

Tree-like? I don't think I ever said I conceive of philosophy as "tree-like." And I'm not sure such a descriptor offers much in the way of any discernible expectation for how Epistemology (in its various forms no less) plays a role in Ethics (also in its various forms...no less).

It's a branch, off morality I assume...as you see it. And morality stems from?

That's a start. But there's a whole lot more to consider about the structures of Ethics on the whole if and when we're also going to bring int he comparative structures of our Epistmelogical perspectives.

What's your starting point?

In fact, we should expect it to become nearly labrythine. The surprising thing is there are those in both politics and religion who seem to think all of this is simply unnecessary complication of practical matters. I'd say say evaluators are misinformed and/or negligent where justification is a concern.

I think if consider first the reason, point of, or telos of an ethical framework. It keeps the behavior aligned with the purpose or telos of the role.

I disagree. Existentialism is a perspective; it's for those who don't see the certainties that so many other people claim that they do see.

Said the theist to the atheist lol.

But don't concern yourself with that. Although I'm Existentialist, it isn't a position I recommend. It's more of an unfortunate default that I hope others don't fall into ...

Not much point in categorizing a viewpoint I have no full reference for....

I'm a radical pragmatic egoist?

There's always lots of 'room' on this for everyone, I've always thought.

"Remake"? I'm sure you didn't mean for it to sound rather Leftist, but to 'remake' an ethical framework or system sounds a bit communistic to me.

Well let's stick with the do no harm basics of medical ethics and I'll give you an example. Prenatal genetic manipulation is now a thing...the possibility of curing genetic disease in the womb will likely be a reality in the not so distant future. As understanding of genetics grows, we've actually been able to learn causes of various conditions (genetic groupings present) in things not necessarily considered a disease...but still potentially harmful. For example, transgenderism. Now, when one realizes that the main argument for increased medical access, as well as a vast host of demands upon society at large, is one of a persistent chance of either self harm or social harm that arises from this condition, and given the imperfect results of medical treatment, the answer clearly seems to fix transgender people in the womb....and save them the struggle.

The question however that follows is are you helping transgender people or simply eliminating them?

This is why it's an ever changing framework. The pragmatic nature arises from circumstances and possibilities that are unique and often changing.

If we're talking about moral 'framworks' rather than the citations of singular acts of benevolence, I think we're already doing Ethics rather than simply talking morality.

We're talking ethics. I can create an ethical framework....but it's not about truth. It's about the reasons behind the behavior in the context of a defined role. I can possibly model one person's moral inclinations. I can't create any universal moral model nor any ethical framework which is perfect unless....like my example of the comedian....it's so narrowly defined that and encompasses so little behavior that any deviation creates a new role.

There's more to it than this, really.

Is that what Descartes is going to tell me?

This is another place in which I'll have to dissent.

Ok.

Where did you get this conception of ethics from, particularly as you've applied it to the role of a comedian?

The role itself.

I think you meant to say "practical constraints" that are endemic to human limitations rather than pragmatic constraints....?

Both really. You could be the best geneticist in the world....but outside your lab you aren't curing anything.

Ok. Lol! ... So you hate philosophers even while our, yourself, philosophize.

I'm an exception to that rule lol don't you dare associate me with those verbose egg heads. I literally didn't read the myth of sisyphus because a communist recommended it to me. He believed it an allegory for Marxism. I told him I knew the basics of the myth and he was being generous to Marxism. A more apt allegory would be if sisyphus simply pushed the bolder around the hill ceaselessly...incapable of stopping despite pain and exhaustion, for no gain, purpose, or meaning. He stopped talking to me after that. I really don't mind ideologues but I wouldn't use one to achieve anything.

I see. That's an interesting paradox to live in, I suppose. How about instead saying that you disagree strongly with some philosophers, and that you may find some whom you agree with (since one philosopher isn't identical in person or ideas as another, typically)?

There's a way I see philosophy that you may find insulting but you shouldn't. I don't understand what makes a great philosopher. I suppose being accredited with a new concept or perspective holds some notoriety.....but in terms of forming worldviews, they got pretty desperate when it became apparent science would be providing better models and more accurate understanding than they could ever hope to. I see Hegel as a reaction to that realization. There's a lot of sophistry employed to create a worldview that could compete with the crushing advance of scientific rationality. Even worse, to argue against that advance strips a philosopher of any hopeful claim to the love of truth or pursuit of knowledge. He tried, and incidentally failed, making a confused sort of godless religion. Yet, I guess he's considered pretty important. I don't think he had half of what Max Stirner did. If I were to guess....your average philosophy major spends a semester on Hegel....and skips Stirner. Again, I don't see what makes a philosopher important outside of the ancient Greeks. It seems very arbitrary.

The existentialism philosophers retreated into the mental realm of human nature, meaning, thought, belief and they carry that sort of dark depression of knowing they're on the way out. They had some interesting things to say...the absurdists I see as rejecting the depression. It still had a lot of space to explore and psychology was a new discipline with more speculation than understanding.

The postmodernists are a full circle return to sophistry. What's that you say? Meanings of words are socially constructed? Good job, have a cookie. Wait...what? You see such arbitrary constructions as constraints upon freedom and the imposition of power? Give the cookie back dumb dumb.

That's a bit mean I guess....but they're French, and endlessly self congratulatory for mundanity. Most of them would have done better with an occasional backhand across the mouth or perhaps an explanation for the point of words.

Yeah, I know. You've shared that as being the case. Mine conception of "Ethics" starts but doesn't end in the usual places: with the standard sorts of academic Ethics books.

Where does it start?

This we can agree on. So, there's our first point (or maybe our second) of agreement.

Hooray. See? We can keep turning this concept around until we've bored everyone to sleep or gain some understanding of each other's concept.

Yes. But the mere act of "describing" doesn't entail a prescription or advocacy of such ethics.

I don't understand why ethics would need advocacy. They can be taught to the person engaged in the role and committed to doing its behaviors correctly. They don't really need advocacy though.

For example, there's an ethics to journalism. I can think of several of the common maxims. Today, most who name themselves journalists are not. They are propagandists....passing political opinion and promoting it, regardless of facts, and without consideration of any objectivity. I can respect both jobs well done....but I find them disgusting when they lie about what they are.

In other words, any of us can simply go down the list of the possible dozen or so Ethical systems and/or frameworks and attempt to identify and evaluate the "ethics of a combat solider" and end up with a menagerie of diverse views.

Uh huh. I've considered it. I've considered various arguments against it. I feel confident in the difficulty of arguing against my framework lol.

Yet the beauty of this is neither of us need to argue. You can say your framework, I can say mine....but since soldiers engage in war, and wars involve various factions of soldiers....the easiest way is to pass out the sharpened sticks and see who is correct.

It might also depend on what context we're talking about. There's probably some difference between the ethics involved in, say, a soldier who is "sent in" to rescue or defend a set of individuals and one who was doing the jabbing at Gautanomo Bay.

We send lots of people to rescue people in various people in many situations. We can use soldiers when numbers are needed, because they obey orders....despite our insistence that they should know when to disobey (this is where your morals interfere with pragmatic constraints)....but typically we send soldiers when we expect combat.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can you just give me one big takeaway before I give it a go?

What's his Kant-like contribution to the topic?

His Kant-like contribution? If there was one to be had it would probably be that all things considered, none of us should be too certain of ourselves ... (There. I just saved you an hours worth of reading ... lol!)

It's a branch, off morality I assume...as you see it. And morality stems from?

The human mental of identification and categorization. Notice, though...... I didn't say it stems from "the Bible."

What's your starting point?

Wherever I may roam ... I'm an Existentialist, not a Fundamentalist nor a Foundationalist. However, if I was to posit sort of practical starting point for my own personal engagement with Ethics, it'd probably be Barbara J. King's book, Evolving God, but not for theological reasons.

I think if consider first the reason, point of, or telos of an ethical framework. It keeps the behavior aligned with the purpose or telos of the role.

Sure. I can agree with that. But then we get in the whole Ends VS. Means thing which can then be thrown into relief against the IS-Ought distinction of Hume. Or just throw Hume against Kant. It gets fun. It also ends up going nowhere for all of us.

So, then we employ governments to help make our decisions 'for us.' (That's meant to be a bit of humor ...)

Said the theist to the atheist lol.

Oh....you still don't get me, I see. No, it's not a case of the 'theist' saying to the atheist. I'm an Exisentialist. Think of me as a person who wakes up each day and sees essentially the same thing the atheist does. I just "think" something different as I work through the facts of life ... and oncoming death.

Think of me as a kind of Carl Sagan who swallows Pascal's pill ... for whatever relief that offers.

Not much point in categorizing a viewpoint I have no full reference for....

I'm a radical pragmatic egoist?

I don't know what you are. Only you know. But as Winston might have said, "... I wish I could know."

Well let's stick with the do no harm basics of medical ethics and I'll give you an example. Prenatal genetic manipulation is now a thing...the possibility of curing genetic disease in the womb will likely be a reality in the not so distant future. As understanding of genetics grows, we've actually been able to learn causes of various conditions (genetic groupings present) in things not necessarily considered a disease...but still potentially harmful. For example, transgenderism. Now, when one realizes that the main argument for increased medical access, as well as a vast host of demands upon society at large, is one of a persistent chance of either self harm or social harm that arises from this condition, and given the imperfect results of medical treatment, the answer clearly seems to fix transgender people in the womb....and save them the struggle.

The question however that follows is are you helping transgender people or simply eliminating them?

This is why it's an ever changing framework. The pragmatic nature arises from circumstances and possibilities that are unique and often changing.

Yep. We studied that issue a little back in Medical Ethics class. Being that it was 2003 or so, I don't think we got into how it might apply to the issue of "helping transgender folks." I don't plan on getting into that issue really. Neither here nor there.

We're talking ethics. I can create an ethical framework....but it's not about truth. It's about the reasons behind the behavior in the context of a defined role. I can possibly model one person's moral inclinations. I can't create any universal moral model nor any ethical framework which is perfect unless....like my example of the comedian....it's so narrowly defined that and encompasses so little behavior that any deviation creates a new role.

Sure. But I'd say that Ethics is our 'attempt' at truth. That's all truth ever really is since and shouldn't be confused with Reality in-as-such.

Is that what Descartes is going to tell me?

He'll try, but at the point after his Discourse on Method and he begins to try to "tell us", that's when I begin to ignore him and start walking the Existential path in a Pascal leaning kind of way. Pascal disagreed with Descartes on the whole epistemological "building project" as such. So do I.

Both really. You could be the best geneticist in the world....but outside your lab you aren't curing anything.

Sure. There's always the risk of Epistemological Trespassing, and all of us have to be wary of that. Unless we're in power ... lol!

I'm an exception to that rule lol don't you dare associate me with those verbose egg heads. I literally didn't read the myth of sisyphus because a communist recommended it to me. He believed it an allegory for Marxism. I told him I knew the basics of the myth and he was being generous to Marxism. A more apt allegory would be if sisyphus simply pushed the bolder around the hill ceaselessly...incapable of stopping despite pain and exhaustion, for no gain, purpose, or meaning. He stopped talking to me after that. I really don't mind ideologues but I wouldn't use one to achieve anything.

Well, that makes two of us. Because, you see, I only value the style of philosophy that majors in analytic evaluation, not in gross speculation.

There's a way I see philosophy that you may find insulting but you shouldn't. I don't understand what makes a great philosopher. I suppose being accredited with a new concept or perspective holds some notoriety.....but in terms of forming worldviews, they got pretty desperate when it became apparent science would be providing better models and more accurate understanding than they could ever hope to. I see Hegel as a reaction to that realization. There's a lot of sophistry employed to create a worldview that could compete with the crushing advance of scientific rationality. Even worse, to argue against that advance strips a philosopher of any hopeful claim to the love of truth or pursuit of knowledge. He tried, and incidentally failed, making a confused sort of godless religion. Yet, I guess he's considered pretty important. I don't think he had half of what Max Stirner did. If I were to guess....your average philosophy major spends a semester on Hegel....and skips Stirner. Again, I don't see what makes a philosopher important outside of the ancient Greeks. It seems very arbitrary.

Why would I find this insulting? ... do this. Consider the inverted meaning of my use of Ghost Rider. Then maybe you'll realize that on some levels, you and I are not so different. We just come at some of the same goals via different angles and concepts.

What makes a great philosopher? That's a question that goes with so many others. Personally, I don't think any one philosopher provides all the answers. At best, one philosopher has a few good ideas; another one over there has a few more. Yet another over yonder provides a good counterpoint to these two and a fourth (or more) might get at an issue in a way the others don't.

I will say this: I'm no fan of Hegel or Heidegger.

The existentialism philosophers retreated into the mental realm of human nature, meaning, thought, belief and they carry that sort of dark depression of knowing they're on the way out. They had some interesting things to say...the absurdists I see as rejecting the depression. It still had a lot of space to explore and psychology was a new discipline with more speculation than understanding.

The postmodernists are a full circle return to sophistry. What's that you say? Meanings of words are socially constructed? Good job, have a cookie. Wait...what? You see such arbitrary constructions as constraints upon freedom and the imposition of power? Give the cookie back dumb dumb.

That's a bit mean I guess....but they're French, and endlessly self congratulatory for mundanity. Most of them would have done better with an occasional backhand across the mouth or perhaps an explanation for the point of words.

I'd agree with you to some extent with what you've said here, but for different reasons since on Existentialism isn't another Existentialism. Kierkegaard isn't Niezsche, Camus isn't Heiddeger, and Sartre isn't Tillich or Jaspers or Pascal. Not that you need to care, but there are differences among the similarities.

Hooray. See? We can keep turning this concept around until we've bored everyone to sleep or gain some understanding of each other's concept.

Yeah. And the continual turning we could do, we end up justifying the premise of this thread. And I appreciate you're being an accomplice in that endeavor. Lol!

I don't understand why ethics would need advocacy. They can be taught to the person engaged in the role and committed to doing its behaviors correctly. They don't really need advocacy though.

They do since each Ethical position may (and can be) at odds with some of the others. It's not as if they all have the same moral goals.

For example, there's an ethics to journalism. I can think of several of the common maxims. Today, most who name themselves journalists are not. They are propagandists....passing political opinion and promoting it, regardless of facts, and without consideration of any objectivity. I can respect both jobs well done....but I find them disgusting when they lie about what they are.

agreed.

Uh huh. I've considered it. I've considered various arguments against it. I feel confident in the difficulty of arguing against my framework lol.

Yet the beauty of this is neither of us need to argue. You can say your framework, I can say mine....but since soldiers engage in war, and wars involve various factions of soldiers....the easiest way is to pass out the sharpened sticks and see who is correct.

Ohhhhhhh..... that sounds rather Machiavellian. I'm not sure making "the point" in that way leads to accuracy or truth in human, international relations.

We send lots of people to rescue people in various people in many situations. We can use soldiers when numbers are needed, because they obey orders....despite our insistence that they should know when to disobey (this is where your morals interfere with pragmatic constraints)....but typically we send soldiers when we expect combat.

Sure. That's to be expected.

 

[Ana the Ist]

His Kant-like contribution? If there was one to be had it would probably be that all things considered, none of us should be too certain of ourselves ... (There. I just saved you an hours worth of reading ... lol!)

Funny...yeah his noumenon.

Since you referenced him first I expected he had some big contribution to ethics I'm unaware of. Maybe not as big as Kants noumenon but if there's a significant contribution just simplify it down as much as possible.

The human mental of identification and categorization.

Which is "distinction" and related to perception.

Notice, though...... I didn't say it stems from "the Bible."

That's fine.

Wherever I may roam ... I'm an Existentialist, not a Fundamentalist nor a Foundationalist. However, if I was to posit sort of practical starting point for my own personal engagement with Ethics, it'd probably be Barbara J. King's book, Evolving God, but not for theological reasons

Existentialism is a broad category as its name implies. I've found it asks interesting questions but often dwells upon them without any movement towards understanding. It's like a strict materialist and a brilliant apologist arguing over the existence of free will. It's possibly a very interesting discussion...and almost certainly without any meaningful resolution even if one could prove their argument. It's a very low stakes victory.

So when you say you're an Existentialist, it's so unlikely that whatever that means to you is what it means to me.

Sure. I can agree with that. But then we get in the whole Ends VS. Means thing which can then be thrown into relief against the IS-Ought distinction of Hume. Or just throw Hume against Kant. It gets fun. It also ends up going nowhere for all of us.

There's that Existentialist....that's the identifying feature I find familiar lol.

So, then we employ governments to help make our decisions 'for us.' (That's meant to be a bit of humor ...)

As a member of the federal government I'm glad to be of service. No thanks necessary.

Oh....you still don't get me, I see. No, it's not a case of the 'theist' saying to the atheist. I'm an Exisentialist. Think of me as a person who wakes up each day and sees essentially the same thing the atheist does. I just "think" something different as I work through the facts of life ... and oncoming death.

@2PhiloVoid I promise...despite whatever people say of themselves...I assume everyone an atheist until they display a true act of faith.

Think of me as a kind of Carl Sagan who swallows Pascal's pill ... for whatever relief that offers.

Is that how you see yourself? Think of me as Dioginese, easily tearing apart ideas...but fully aware that is a pale shadow to constructing them. I know the vastness of my ignorance and prefer to hide what I see as true. I see no one saying what I think. I see little which appears to me wise. It seems I might be dumb but honest enough with myself to suspect it....or perhaps smart and greedily keeping the little truths I know like a pile of gold that I don't want anyone to know.

When no one really says the things you think it's difficult to tell.

I don't know what you are. Only you know. But as Winston might have said, "... I wish I could know."

Yeah the label was a spontaneous self referential joke. I hold so few principles that they're hard to cohere into a descriptive label.

Yep. We studied that issue a little back in Medical Ethics class. Being that it was 2003 or so, I don't think we got into how it might apply to the issue of "helping transgender folks." I don't plan on getting into that issue really. Neither here nor there.

Recent advancements. Not important. Just an example.

Sure. But I'd say that Ethics is our 'attempt' at truth.

What truth are we trying to approach?

I feel as if I can describe behavior truthfully....but it's not an ethical description.

That's all truth ever really is since and shouldn't be confused with Reality in-as-such.

Sure, whatever it is we believe we apprehend...it is incomplete and even if it is complete, there is no means for knowing that.

He'll try, but at the point after his Discourse on Method and he begins to try to "tell us", that's when I begin to ignore him and start walking the Existential path in a Pascal leaning kind of way. Pascal disagreed with Descartes on the whole epistemological "building project" as such. So do I.

It seems an unavoidable project.

Sure. There's always the risk of Epistemological Trespassing, and all of us have to be wary of that. Unless we're in power ... lol!

Again, it seems to me an unavoidable project....if you believe that ethics are founded on truth. I would describe ethics as related to truth...in many ways...but not really an explanation of truth or exploration of it. Maybe I can show you what I mean.

Well, that makes two of us. Because, you see, I only value the style of philosophy that majors in analytic evaluation, not in gross speculation.

I wouldn't recommend the pursuit of truth to anyone. It's a vain endeavor that doesn't necessarily result in knowledge of value. We aren't neutral beings in our relationship with truth. Some things may be true, and appear to be potentially catastrophic to reveal....and if so, one should not speak it.

Why would I find this insulting? ... do this. Consider the inverted meaning of my use of Ghost Rider. Then maybe you'll realize that on some levels, you and I are not so different. We just come at some of the same goals via different angles and concepts.

What makes a great philosopher? That's a question that goes with so many others. Personally, I don't think any one philosopher provides all the answers. At best, one philosopher has a few good ideas; another one over there has a few more. Yet another over yonder provides a good counterpoint to these two and a fourth (or more) might get at an issue in a way the others don't.

I will say this: I'm no fan of Hegel or Heidegger.

I'd agree with you to some extent with what you've said here, but for different reasons since on Existentialism isn't another Existentialism. Kierkegaard isn't Niezsche, Camus isn't Heiddeger, and Sartre isn't Tillich or Jaspers or Pascal. Not that you need to care, but there are differences among the similarities.

Sure. I don't care. There's smart men there, but they inevitably express stupid things. There's stupid men there who may accidentally say something smart.

It's a group of people who may or may not have useful knowledge, who may or may not pontificate endlessly on pointless questions. I'm aware some philosophers believe, for example, it more likely we live in a simulation of sorts....and probably can make a strong argument for it. Yet even if they could convince me, I don't see how it would change my perspective on anything except add a vague layer of extra uncertainty. All in all, even if convinced, I would have to guess that the only way to incorporate such uncertainty is to...ignore it. I can't know what to question, but still have to proceed in the simulation as if it were reality. In the end, despite it being a profound change in perspective, it tells me nothing about how to engage with reality, and therefore I can only ignore it.

I don't even bother looking up who these philosophers are lol...I mean, who is reading their work and why?

I threw Kant at you since I assumed like every other philophile you were at least familiar with his work. Do you know his "peering through the keyhole" passage?

Yeah. And the continual turning we could do, we end up justifying the premise of this thread. And I appreciate you're being an accomplice in that endeavor. Lol!

Nobody else seemed to be saying much lol.

They do since each Ethical position may (and can be) at odds with some of the others. It's not as if they all have the same moral goals.

You think the goals are moral ones?

I could probably start building an ethical framework for advertising for example. If I were to try and base it on morality though.....any advertiser would almost certainly fail if they followed it.

agreed.

Ohhhhhhh..... that sounds rather Machiavellian. I'm not sure making "the point" in that way leads to accuracy or truth in human, international relations.

No word more dubiously contradictory than "Machiavellian". We describe cunning, immoral, strategic plotters this way....yet Niccolo himself gives away his entire strategy, and pragmatic nature of political power, to anyone who cares to read it. It's about the least Machiavellian thing he could have done.

Again, consider an ethics for advertising built upon morality. I would build mine as a guide for achieving the telos of advertising itself as I see it, based upon pragmatic considerations.


If we each had an advertising company, do you think yours would compete with mine? If so....why? If not....what exactly was the point of the ethical framework? And I'll just concede yours may be more moral, more honest, less manipulative, and more "good" in other ways we might agree. I can't imagine though, that would matter to many except for you....and your employees would find a more secure future working for me once you're out of business lol.

A moral car salesman may not be ripping off customers....but he certainly takes more than the car is worth. Perhaps he only gains much from the very wealthy....but it's not exactly a moral endeavor in my mind. He trades a depreciating asset for more than its worth. It's a tricky negotiation.

With that in mind, he's going to sell more if the customer wants the regardless of value. Advertisers who do that will inevitably succeed. Advertisers who...I don't know....focus on important things about the vehicle and try to honestly inform you of comparative value will fail imo. That doesn't mean lying is required but honesty instead of emotional manipulation doesn't seem to work. If it did, I'd propose we'd see a lot of very honest advertising. I'm not exactly sure what a morally derived ethical framework for advertising even looks like other than one that drives the Advertiser out of business. If you think people generally don't want to be told what to buy, talk to anyone who sells something expensive.

Sure. That's to be expected.

I'm not sure what way to ask this again without repeating myself so or getting some reading homework back from you...so let's start with what I think we agree on so far....

1. Ethics describes behavior in some way.
2. There is at least some overlap with moral descriptions of behavior.
3. Ethical frameworks or models are typically created for specific roles and the behavior those roles engage in.

If we agree on this, when I ask what your starting point for ethics is I am asking what is it you consider when constructing an ethical model? Your morals? What you think the morals of a particular role should be? Something about truth? Please don't give me a book lol. Even if I did read it, it seems rather hopeful I'd understand where you're coming from.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Funny...yeah his noumenon.

Since you referenced him first I expected he had some big contribution to ethics I'm unaware of. Maybe not as big as Kants noumenon but if there's a significant contribution just simplify it down as much as possible.

No. I just referenced Descartes because I don't think Ethics can be disentangled from Epistemology.

Existentialism is a broad category as its name implies. I've found it asks interesting questions but often dwells upon them without any movement towards understanding. It's like a strict materialist and a brilliant apologist arguing over the existence of free will. It's possibly a very interesting discussion...and almost certainly without any meaningful resolution even if one could prove their argument. It's a very low stakes victory.

So when you say you're an Existentialist, it's so unlikely that whatever that means to you is what it means to me.

From what you're saying, yeah........it sounds like you and I have very different conceptions about it. Mine leans more toward a semi-mixture of aspects of Sagan, Sartre, Pascal and Kierkegaard. And then there's that whole, separate hermeneutics thing, too.

As a member of the federal government I'm glad to be of service. No thanks necessary.

Thanks? Lol! I'm sure Paul the Apostle would thank you.

@2PhiloVoid I promise...despite whatever people say of themselves...I assume everyone an atheist until they display a true act of faith.

I lean more toward the agnostic side of cognition. I don't know; what I do think I know is that no one really does know either.

Is that how you see yourself? Think of me as Dioginese, easily tearing apart ideas...but fully aware that is a pale shadow to constructing them. I know the vastness of my ignorance and prefer to hide what I see as true. I see no one saying what I think. I see little which appears to me wise. It seems I might be dumb but honest enough with myself to suspect it....or perhaps smart and greedily keeping the little truths I know like a pile of gold that I don't want anyone to know.

When no one really says the things you think it's difficult to tell.

We're similiar in this vein. I say, you say---we both say, "I know the vastness of my ignorance ..."

Yeah the label was a spontaneous self referential joke. I hold so few principles that they're hard to cohere into a descriptive label.

I don't see anything wrong with a minimal set of principles. I mean, how many do we need really?

What truth are we trying to approach?

I feel as if I can describe behavior truthfully....but it's not an ethical description.

I think I may have not been clear enough. My apologies. I define "truth" as an attempted verbal representation pertaining to some aspect of Reality. Some "truths" are more robust than others. So, my intention here was simply to say that this is what we do, not that there is some Ethical Reality that is 'THE TRUTH.'

Sure, whatever it is we believe we apprehend...it is incomplete and even if it is complete, there is no means for knowing that.

Yep.

It seems an unavoidable project.

Sure. And my existentialism doesn't preclude that knowledge of some sort exists. It just precludes knowing 'why' and sometimes 'what' in any ultimate sense.

Again, it seems to me an unavoidable project....if you believe that ethics are founded on truth. I would describe ethics as related to truth...in many ways...but not really an explanation of truth or exploration of it. Maybe I can show you what I mean.

I agree.

I wouldn't recommend the pursuit of truth to anyone. It's a vain endeavor that doesn't necessarily result in knowledge of value. We aren't neutral beings in our relationship with truth. Some things may be true, and appear to be potentially catastrophic to reveal....and if so, one should not speak it.

I agree.

Sure. I don't care. There's smart men there, but they inevitably express stupid things. There's stupid men there who may accidentally say something smart.

Yep.

It's a group of people who may or may not have useful knowledge, who may or may not pontificate endlessly on pointless questions. I'm aware some philosophers believe, for example, it more likely we live in a simulation of sorts....and probably can make a strong argument for it. Yet even if they could convince me, I don't see how it would change my perspective on anything except add a vague layer of extra uncertainty. All in all, even if convinced, I would have to guess that the only way to incorporate such uncertainty is to...ignore it. I can't know what to question, but still have to proceed in the simulation as if it were reality. In the end, despite it being a profound change in perspective, it tells me nothing about how to engage with reality, and therefore I can only ignore it.

I don't even bother looking up who these philosophers are lol...I mean, who is reading their work and why?

I read some of their works in order to help me piece together a semblance of meaning (semblance being the key word in my existentialism).

I threw Kant at you since I assumed like every other philophile you were at least familiar with his work. Do you know his "peering through the keyhole" passage?

I don't think I have. We only read a portion of his "Critique of Pure Reason." Where is that quote from?

You think the goals are moral ones?

Not for all of them.

I could probably start building an ethical framework for advertising for example. If I were to try and base it on morality though.....any advertiser would almost certainly fail if they followed it.

... which is part of the reason I dropped out from the Graphic Arts/Commercial Design program I was in long ago. Lol!

Still, anyone in advertising business still has to pay the piper and be audited, just like every other business. I'd think there's as least some insistence somewhere in the mix that will hold consistent and applicable even to the most impudent of advertisers. (Hugh Hefner had to deal with accountants, and auditors and laws, I'm sure...)

No word more dubiously contradictory than "Machiavellian". We describe cunning, immoral, strategic plotters this way....yet Niccolo himself gives away his entire strategy, and pragmatic nature of political power, to anyone who cares to read it. It's about the least Machiavellian thing he could have done.

Again, consider an ethics for advertising built upon morality. I would build mine as a guide for achieving the telos of advertising itself as I see it, based upon pragmatic considerations.

Some people think it's 'pragmatic' to avoid paying taxes or follow other business laws.

If we each had an advertising company, do you think yours would compete with mine? If so....why? If not....what exactly was the point of the ethical framework? And I'll just concede yours may be more moral, more honest, less manipulative, and more "good" in other ways we might agree. I can't imagine though, that would matter to many except for you....and your employees would find a more secure future working for me once you're out of business lol.

Who knows how it would have come out if we were competing? If I was to be 'Christian' about it, though, I'd know that in today's world, I wouldn't make if very far, nor for very long.

A moral car salesman may not be ripping off customers....but he certainly takes more than the car is worth. Perhaps he only gains much from the very wealthy....but it's not exactly a moral endeavor in my mind. He trades a depreciating asset for more than its worth. It's a tricky negotiation.

Yep. That's for sure.

With that in mind, he's going to sell more if the customer wants the regardless of value. Advertisers who do that will inevitably succeed. Advertisers who...I don't know....focus on important things about the vehicle and try to honestly inform you of comparative value will fail imo. That doesn't mean lying is required but honesty instead of emotional manipulation doesn't seem to work. If it did, I'd propose we'd see a lot of very honest advertising. I'm not exactly sure what a morally derived ethical framework for advertising even looks like other than one that drives the Advertiser out of business. If you think people generally don't want to be told what to buy, talk to anyone who sells something expensive.

Oh, I don't think that.

I'm not sure what way to ask this again without repeating myself so or getting some reading homework back from you...so let's start with what I think we agree on so far....

1. Ethics describes behavior in some way.
2. There is at least some overlap with moral descriptions of behavior.
3. Ethical frameworks or models are typically created for specific roles and the behavior those roles engage in.

Sure. The problem comes in when someone thinks that his or her view (whether its liberal or conservative in nature) is THE ONE that SHOULD be enforced over and upon all others.

If we agree on this, when I ask what your starting point for ethics is I am asking what is it you consider when constructing an ethical model?

I consider Reality, and I do this apart from claims of truth; in other words, I start from a meta level of 2nd order considerations, not from those practical ones that lie more or less on the 1st order of thinking. That is, I begin with all of those nasty, underlying epistemic issues that pull the rug out from underneath our attempts to all too easily and tidely present 'what's right' in a pretty box and bow to shove into the face of the rest of the world. Or where the world might put in my face and expect an easily made, congenial response ...

Your morals? What you think the morals of a particular role should be? Something about truth? Please don't give me a book lol. Even if I did read it, it seems rather hopeful I'd understand where you're coming from.

As I've said already, I'm an Existentialist. I don't think there exists an imminent, let alone a perfect model for Ethics that shines clearly and discernibly for any and all of us like the sun in the noon-day sky. And although I loathe to refer to Hegel for much more than his "dialectic," I think that where philosophy is concerned even where Ethics specifically is the focus, I can agree with him that we can start just about anywhere we choose since all of life is interconnected to some degree.

On my part, I started my own venture into Ethics with my own pain and frustration in life and a healthy fear of death, and then I worked outwards from there ... ... bumping into Jesus along the Way. I still have a long philosophical and experiential trek ahead of me, however, where the artificial creation of a working model for Ethics may be a hopeful outcome.

On a practical level, for me, Ethics is philosophy, philosophy is about answering the interrogatives of Life, if possible, and this project usually isn't something best done, or typically effectively done, on a public forum. Usually, it's better to engage fully the writing and thoughts of those who have, or have had, more brilliant minds of a substantive order.

One thing I have found out in life is that milling about on a forum doesn't produce much in the way of Ehtical substance. It does make for a conveniently placed avenue for political influence and polemics, much of which gets passed off as 'Ethics' these days.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No. I just referenced Descartes because I don't think Ethics can be disentangled from Epistemology.

Ok.

From what you're saying, yeah........it sounds like you and I have very different conceptions about it. Mine leans more toward a semi-mixture of aspects of Sagan, Sartre, Pascal and Kierkegaard. And then there's that whole, separate hermeneutics thing, too.

Not a fan of any of them.

Thanks? Lol! I'm sure Paul the Apostle would thank you.

I felt it wrong to pursue my talents for myself alone and right to pursue a way to make them of service to others. I don't hold any contempt for those who seek to do the opposite.

I lean more toward the agnostic side of cognition. I don't know; what I do think I know is that no one really does know either.

We're similiar in this vein. I say, you say---we both say, "I know the vastness of my ignorance ..."

I don't see anything wrong with a minimal set of principles. I mean, how many do we need really?

I think a bare minimum of three before we can claim ourselves principled lol.

I think I may have not been clear enough. My apologies. I define "truth" as an attempted verbal representation pertaining to some aspect of Reality.

Not a branch of Reality?

Some "truths" are more robust than others. So, my intention here was simply to say that this is what we do, not that there is some Ethical Reality that is 'THE TRUTH.'

Ok. You aren't starting from the objective which exists apart from yourself....and that makes sense.

I don't think I am either. However I don't know why a personal subjective ethic would ever be needed....even for oneself.

It's social roles we construct ethics for....and they contain both listed and unlisted values.

Yep.

Sure. And my existentialism doesn't preclude that knowledge of some sort exists. It just precludes knowing 'why' and sometimes 'what' in any ultimate sense.

I agree.

I agree.

Yep.

I read some of their works in order to help me piece together a semblance of meaning (semblance being the key word in my existentialism).

There's nothing wrong with it lol. I'm the aberrant one here. I have to read philosophy sometimes to engage ideas I have no reference for.....but if someone is simply using a fancy word for something I already considered it's a frustrating process. I can appreciate a philosopher who can distill the idea down to as efficiently few words as possible.

I don't think I have. We only read a portion of his "Critique of Pure Reason." Where is that quote from?

Skip it...I think it's in his attempt at a moral construction where he gets sidetracked on the usefulness of anxiety. Not important.

Not for all of them.

... which is part of the reason I dropped out from the Graphic Arts/Commercial Design program I was in long ago. Lol!

Right. I decided to forgo a political internship. Being a politician would have been bad enough, working for one dreadful.

Still, anyone in advertising business still has to pay the piper and be audited, just like every other business.

I'm not suggesting that advertising should break laws to succeed. In fact, while it may need bring it's toe to the line...outright lying doesn't seem a good long-term ethic. There's a reason snake-oil salesman are depicted on wagons after all...they can only sell once, and must move on after.

I'd think there's as least some insistence somewhere in the mix that will hold consistent and applicable even to the most impudent of advertisers. (Hugh Hefner had to deal with accountants, and auditors and laws, I'm sure...)

Some people think it's 'pragmatic' to avoid paying taxes or follow other business laws.

I have no sympathy for a cheat...but someone who plays within the rules and understands what isn't a rule tends to win the game. I remember playing monopoly as a child....very boring.....hours of a game with no end in sight. Then one day, frustrated that the game never ended, I looked at the rules and saw "deals" could be made with other players. There's no constraints really on the sort of deal either. Monopoly games got real short real fast after that....I simply waited for opponents to be facing large cash payments for landing on my property, and offered to excuse their debt for their property.

Who knows how it would have come out if we were competing? If I was to be 'Christian' about it, though, I'd know that in today's world, I wouldn't make if very far, nor for very long.

Yep. That's for sure.

Oh, I don't think that.

I don't know many professions that actually enforce ethics. Even hospitals don't really enforce them...violations are logged, categorized, examined, and occasionally result in new methods. Mortal negligence is frequently hidden from public scrutiny and malpractice is hard to prosecute.

Sure. The problem comes in when someone thinks that his or her view (whether its liberal or conservative in nature) is THE ONE that SHOULD be enforced over and upon all others.

I don't see what sort of organization doesn't have an organizing principle.

I consider Reality,

Ok.

and I do this apart from claims of truth;

Ok.

in other words, I start from a meta level of 2nd order considerations, not from those practical ones that lie more or less on the 1st order of thinking.

Now you lost me. How do you start at 2nd order considerations without any 1st order considerations?

If this is your long way of saying you look to ends before means...I'm going to start thinking you're pulling my chain here.

That is, I begin with all of those nasty, underlying epistemic issues that pull the rug out from underneath our attempts to all too easily and tidely present 'what's right' in a pretty box and bow to shove into the face of the rest of the world.

This is an impulse.

Or where the world might put in my face and expect an easily made, congenial response ...

I don't expect a perfect model. I swear I conceded early no such model exists. Yet, it sounds as if you prefer to stay in some purely theoretical realm and never construct a model at all.

What's the impulse? A desire for something perfect, enduring, and outside of any criticism? I gave you the closest one I can imagine. Comedian- Be funny. This isn't elegant, brilliant, beautiful or even certain...it's cheap, easy, dirty, practical. I mentioned Diogenese because I believe he said to Plato, and I'm paraphrasing here....


"HEYYY! HEY STUPID!!! NO ONE NEEDS YOU'RE THEORETICAL ETHICS! WHAT'S THE POINT IF IT'S NO USE TO ANYONE?!? I'LL TELL YOU WHERE YOU STICK YOUR THEORETICAL ETHICS!!!

And I tend to agree. I don't know if there's some underlying emotional desire for the infinite that causes mankind to aim for the stars and never pull the trigger but regardless....it seems entropy is the way of the universe and all things within it. Deconstruction is easy...Construction is hard. Whatever we build will inevitably fall. Fear not building at all. If it's of any use for awhile it is a fruitful endeavor.

As I've said already, I'm an Existentialist. I don't think there exists an imminent, let alone a perfect model for Ethics that shines clearly and discernibly for any and all of us like the sun in the noon-day sky.

Nor any need for one...hence my insistence upon it's pragmatic nature.

And although I loathe to refer to Hegel for much more than his "dialectic," I think that where philosophy is concerned even where Ethics specifically is the focus, I can agree with him that we can start just about anywhere we choose since all of life is interconnected to some degree.

I can't consider any starting point apart from the role itself. I don't know how that begins.

On my part, I started my own venture into Ethics with my own pain and frustration in life and a healthy fear of death, and then I worked outwards from there ... ... bumping into Jesus along the Way. I still have a long philosophical and experiential trek ahead of me, however, where the artificial creation of a working model for Ethics may be a hopeful outcome.

Working model of ethics for what? You personally? Why would you need that?

You're an Existentialist aren't you?

Surely you understand you'll only ever be you. A model of one's self isn't necessary.

On a practical level, for me, Ethics is philosophy, philosophy is about answering the interrogatives of Life, if possible, and this project usually isn't something best done, or typically effectively done, on a public forum. Usually, it's better to engage fully the writing and thoughts of those who have, or have had, more brilliant minds of a substantive order.

I think some people imagine Newton was gay....and that's certainly possible though there's no clear evidence. He claimed to have been a virgin at death. He reportedly wept at his only friend's funeral.

There's a Russian mathematician who solved one of the millennium problems. I think he created a mathematical model for a 3D sphere describing a linear path of a single point. Perhaps I have him confused with another. Regardless, he rejected the million dollar prize and though he tried to teach for awhile, was offered very lucrative professor positions...he ultimately hated it and return to isolation doing math and caring for his mother.

The towering intellects seem to be doomed to an existence of never being understood nor desirous to try. I can try to teach my dog French, you know? I just won't because he wouldn't get it.

With that in mind, the great philosophers were either kind enough to teach us dogs French....or really not that smart at all.

One thing I have found out in life is that milling about on a forum doesn't produce much in the way of Ehtical substance.

Hey now...we tried...

It does make for a conveniently placed avenue for political influence and polemics, much of which gets passed off as 'Ethics' these days.

Too cheap and dirty for your liking huh?

Political philosophy is a practical philosophy. It's the construction of a game that people would want to play. That's the detail Smith understood and Marx lived in denial of. Smith wanted a game that would appeal to the most, allow for as many types of players as possible, and still offer something to those losing the game. Marx wanted a game no one could lose, which is a game no one can win....and once understood, no one wants to play. It's entirely theoretical....cannot be modeled, and promises everything. Smith's game catapulted us into the age of information. Yet I think we can see the entropy and it's inevitable end. Marx could never construct his game, never model it...but he could model a game for deconstruction. A way to speed entropy. Couldn't build the game he wanted so he built a game to ruin others. Smith understood we are self interested first...and can be made useful with proper incentive. Marx understood that we can be made resentful and petty...because we are self interested first...as long as we keep focused on the theoretical realm of perfection that we lack.

I still think political philosophy is underrated. There's no question about why it's greats are great. They reveal an understanding of human nature that plays out every day, in practical terms...cheap and dirty as it may be.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not a fan of any of them.

The fact that you're not a fan doesn't actually imply or tell me that you've ever engaged any of them. So, of course, saying you're not a fan isn't really saying anything clearly identifiable on your part. ... I'm not a fan of ( fill in the name of your favorite legal mind here). I'm going to guess I've never read of him or her. Which means I'm "no fan," either.

Forgive me if I don't take your disclaimer very seriously here, Ana.

I felt it wrong to pursue my talents for myself alone and right to pursue a way to make them of service to others. I don't hold any contempt for those who seek to do the opposite.

And what are your talents, by the way? It sounds like you're fairly gifted and position. I could only wish for so much. Lol!

I think a bare minimum of three before we can claim ourselves principled lol.

I think 10 principles makes a nice round number for practical purposes, more or less.

Not a branch of Reality?

Ok. You aren't starting from the objective which exists apart from yourself....and that makes sense.

I don't think I am either. However I don't know why a personal subjective ethic would ever be needed....even for oneself.

It's social roles we construct ethics for....and they contain both listed and unlisted values.

I didn't say anything about my creating a personal subjective ethic. I also didn't say one way or the other in regard to objectivity. No one has gotten there yet, so it's a bit early for you to slip in the implication that I'm referring to 'subjectivity.' What kind of Existentialist do you take me for? I never said I'm a Nihilist.

There's nothing wrong with it lol. I'm the aberrant one here. I have to read philosophy sometimes to engage ideas I have no reference for.....but if someone is simply using a fancy word for something I already considered it's a frustrating process. I can appreciate a philosopher who can distill the idea down to as efficiently few words as possible.

Philosophy isn't a singular, monolithic "thing," Ana. There are different kinds of philosophy. Sometimes, we read one kind to dispel another kind or another level of it.

Right. I decided to forgo a political internship. Being a politician would have been bad enough, working for one dreadful.

Yeah.

I'm not suggesting that advertising should break laws to succeed. In fact, while it may need bring it's toe to the line...outright lying doesn't seem a good long-term ethic. There's a reason snake-oil salesman are depicted on wagons after all...they can only sell once, and must move on after.

I have no sympathy for a cheat...but someone who plays within the rules and understands what isn't a rule tends to win the game. I remember playing monopoly as a child....very boring.....hours of a game with no end in sight. Then one day, frustrated that the game never ended, I looked at the rules and saw "deals" could be made with other players. There's no constraints really on the sort of deal either. Monopoly games got real short real fast after that....I simply waited for opponents to be facing large cash payments for landing on my property, and offered to excuse their debt for their property.

...I'm looking through my Philosophy of Law book, trying to find where "Let's make a deal" fits in with one of the various legal models ...

Maybe you can help me discern where it is?

I don't know many professions that actually enforce ethics. Even hospitals don't really enforce them...violations are logged, categorized, examined, and occasionally result in new methods. Mortal negligence is frequently hidden from public scrutiny and malpractice is hard to prosecute.

Wow. You make it sound like the last 3 years didn't actually "happen." Ok. Lol!

I don't see what sort of organization doesn't have an organizing principle.

That's a rather euphemistic way of saying it. However, the problem isn't in having an organizing principle. It comes in treating such a principle as if it's manifestly "absolute" to unquestionable.

Now you lost me. How do you start at 2nd order considerations without any 1st order considerations?

Who said anything about skipping first order considerations? Have you not read any Pascal, Kierkegaard, Frege or Husserl or Sellars or Putnam? I haven't read much of any of these guys, but what what I have read is more than interesting. It beats just relying on Hume or Nietszche to give us all the answers.

If this is your long way of saying you look to ends before means...I'm going to start thinking you're pulling my chain here.

No. I'm not saying that. Maybe do us both a favor and resist the temptation to 'read into' what someone is saying. I'm not looking for eithers ends or means where Ethics are concerned. I'm looking for Reality. ... Y'know. Trying to get beyond a merely Hobbesian view of Life.

This is an impulse.

I'm not understanding this comment of yours.

I don't expect a perfect model. I swear I conceded early no such model exists. Yet, it sounds as if you prefer to stay in some purely theoretical realm and never construct a model at all.

No. But I'm with Kierkegaard where "systematic" approaches are seen as less than effective for reaching either 'truth' or for compelling any social assent.

What's the impulse? A desire for something perfect, enduring, and outside of any criticism? I gave you the closest one I can imagine. Comedian- Be funny. This isn't elegant, brilliant, beautiful or even certain...it's cheap, easy, dirty, practical. I mentioned Diogenese because I believe he said to Plato, and I'm paraphrasing here....


"HEYYY! HEY STUPID!!! NO ONE NEEDS YOU'RE THEORETICAL ETHICS! WHAT'S THE POINT IF IT'S NO USE TO ANYONE?!? I'LL TELL YOU WHERE YOU STICK YOUR THEORETICAL ETHICS!!!

I don't really care for Ancient Greek Philosophy. Never have, in fact.

And I tend to agree. I don't know if there's some underlying emotional desire for the infinite that causes mankind to aim for the stars and never pull the trigger but regardless....it seems entropy is the way of the universe and all things within it. Deconstruction is easy...Construction is hard. Whatever we build will inevitably fall. Fear not building at all. If it's of any use for awhile it is a fruitful endeavor.

I'm not a "deconstructionist." I'm a skeptic. I'm also not a Pyrrhonist. ... Learn the difference, Ana.

Nor any need for one...hence my insistence upon it's pragmatic nature.

Pragmatism is a wax nose. It can also be a tar baby.

I can't consider any starting point apart from the role itself. I don't know how that begins.

That fairly myopic on your part, Ana. To me, it just means you're making excuses for not trying to engage and remaining aloof in your own pre-authorized (and comfortable) position.

Working model of ethics for what? You personally? Why would you need that?

Tsk, tsk. Remember all that I've previously said about how I don't think Epistemology is separate from Ethics?

... what you're failing to grasp (or maybe your do but your just playing it) is that it's not a matter of a working model of ethics for myself. It's a matter of my being compelled to accept the claims of OTHERS who want say they have a working model of ethics, however practical, that they expect one and all to completely abide by with no room for discussion (or negotiation).

You're an Existentialist aren't you?

Surely you understand you'll only ever be you. A model of one's self isn't necessary.

Again. One Existentialism doesn't equate to another. You make it sound as if being existentialist excludes the Objective in all cases. It doesn't have to. (Maybe I need to stop describing myself as an Existentialist since it confuses people ... especially those who have already decided to remain aloof and disconcerned with mutual understanding of other points of view).

I think some people imagine Newton was gay....and that's certainly possible though there's no clear evidence. He claimed to have been a virgin at death. He reportedly wept at his only friend's funeral.

What does this have to do with the price of rice in China?

There's a Russian mathematician who solved one of the millennium problems. I think he created a mathematical model for a 3D sphere describing a linear path of a single point. Perhaps I have him confused with another. Regardless, he rejected the million dollar prize and though he tried to teach for awhile, was offered very lucrative professor positions...he ultimately hated it and return to isolation doing math and caring for his mother.

The towering intellects seem to be doomed to an existence of never being understood nor desirous to try. I can try to teach my dog French, you know? I just won't because he wouldn't get it.

With that in mind, the great philosophers were either kind enough to teach us dogs French....or really not that smart at all.

Oh good gravy. That's a fallacious, sweeping comment. I'd avoid this kind of banter in the future, Ana, because it makes you start to sound silly. And if you actually have the occupation that you do, I'd think you'd want the rest of us to respect that station rather than see you as a side-kick of Ronald McDonald. I know you're smarter than what you let on ... or try to make it sound like.

Hey now...we tried...

We've barely begun.

Too cheap and dirty for your liking huh?

Political philosophy is a practical philosophy. It's the construction of a game that people would want to play. That's the detail Smith understood and Marx lived in denial of. Smith wanted a game that would appeal to the most, allow for as many types of players as possible, and still offer something to those losing the game. Marx wanted a game no one could lose, which is a game no one can win....and once understood, no one wants to play. It's entirely theoretical....cannot be modeled, and promises everything. Smith's game catapulted us into the age of information. Yet I think we can see the entropy and it's inevitable end. Marx could never construct his game, never model it...but he could model a game for deconstruction. A way to speed entropy. Couldn't build the game he wanted so he built a game to ruin others. Smith understood we are self interested first...and can be made useful with proper incentive. Marx understood that we can be made resentful and petty...because we are self interested first...as long as we keep focused on the theoretical realm of perfection that we lack.

I still think political philosophy is underrated. There's no question about why it's greats are great. They reveal an understanding of human nature that plays out every day, in practical terms...cheap and dirty as it may be.

Again. I didn't say anything about either politics not being a form of philosophy or that it should be disparaged. Please stop reading "into" what I've said and stop implying certain things as if you're anticipating my views or opinions.

On the whole, your pattern of delivery comes across as if you're predisposed to simply being dismissive of anything and everything that might count against anything you consider to be of practical value............................... And I really hope that's not the case.

And which 'Smith' are you referring to?

 

[Ken-1122]

As a former student of Philosophy at the university level, it has come to my attention that there are a few folks who don't realize that the field of Ethics is actually a branch of Philosophy.

This is a fact, and one that is readily seen within the curricular structures of just about any major university. An example of such is something like Medical Ethics which I took at the university. That class was classified as a philosophy class, not merely as an "ethics" class or a "medical" class. The same was the case with my Business Ethics class. It too was a form of philosophical study, not merely pertaining to the study of "business." There are also standard classes on Ethics which usually fall under the curricular designation of, again, Philosophy, not merely "Ethics and Morality."

So, what does this mean? It means that if and when we take up the mantle of moral inquiry, we're automatically entering into and DOING PHILOSOPHY, it just happens to be 'moral philosophy." It also means that we're automatically opened up to Epistemological and Metaphysical considerations which can, and often do, overlay and are, at times, instrumental within the very conceptual structures of whichever form of Ethics or Ethical systems we are considering or evaluating. These various branches of Philosophy have overlay with one another and are not wholly separate by any stretch of the imagination.

Is there anyone here on this forum who isn't aware that Ethics is a branch of Philosophy? If not, it's time to get educated about this fact.

It's time to get this straight because I see too many instances of various people implying and/or asserting that Ethics isn't Philosophy. This shouldn't be happening and this confusion needs to come to an end.

Comments and complaints or other unjustified counter-arguments may be posted below ...


Thank you for your time!

Why is it important for people to know this?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why is it important for people to know this?

I'll pretend you didn't just ask that question ...