What is Philosophy in the form of ethics (morals) other than...

[Neogaia777]

Other than an attempt at deciding or making a judgment call(s) (determining, trying to work out) of what systems of societies or personal laws (set of "rules") (a debate over a standard) that we should all unify in following?

 

[Paradoxum]

Ethics is an attempt to use reason to understand what is moral and why. I'm not sure if that answers the question.

(You post is a little hard to read).

 

[abacabb3]

Other than an attempt at deciding or making a judgment call(s) (determining, trying to work out) of what systems of societies or personal laws (set of "rules") (a debate over a standard) that we should all unify in following?

That's a great question.

I think logically, a materialist worldview does not allow of a truly objective view of ethics. Ultimately, pragmatism would be the best way of determining what is right and what is wrong.

An idealist worldview does not necessarily work, though it can. But I find that when ethics are not grounded on some faith-based authority, they become subjective and ultimately what is evil in one place (like raping women) is a time honored tradition (bride kidnapping in Turkic regions).

Ultimately, I don't think morality can be reduced to subjectivity and social contexts. I just feel it in my gut, but I can't prove it.

 

[quatona]

That's a great question.

I think logically, a materialist worldview does not allow of a truly objective view of ethics. Ultimately, pragmatism would be the best way of determining what is right and what is wrong.

An idealist worldview does not necessarily work, though it can. But I find that when ethics are not grounded on some faith-based authority, they become subjective and ultimately what is evil in one place (like raping women) is a time honored tradition (bride kidnapping in Turkic regions).

Seeing how many of those different moral views are ascribed to a "faith-based authority", this doesn´t solve the problem of subjectivity. I mean, "faith" is about as subjective a criterium as it gets.

 

[Neogaia777]

I am of the belief that what is wrong is sin, and that the definitions for that come from the Bible, but the world today and philosophy and ethics, seem to be having to be having a difficult determining what sin is, when I believe it has already been spelled out for us, but because no one can seem to meet that standard set by it, the world argues over what should be permissible and what shouldn't be, and whether they should make one set of rules for all, or by an individual by individual basis, for example Medical uses only of marijuana, being permissible for those with a medical reason, and not permissible for those without one (as just one example)....

Also, the world and philosophical ethics gets into debates over moral dilemmas (cases of Judgement) and is forced to judge over the grey areas, such as Kill to protect, rob the rich to give to the poor, divorce because of domestic abuse, lie to save others from harm, and also the circumstances and story under/about which a violation of the law is committed and the reasons behind them, which should be all taken into account and carefully weighed out when pronouncing a sentence on someone, by a judge...

I feel sorry for judges, must be a very, very difficult to job to right and properly and see that the right and correct amount of justice/judgment is done based upon circumstances...

 

[quatona]

I am of the belief that what is wrong is sin, and that the definitions for that come from the Bible, but the world today and philosophy and ethics, seem to be having to be having a difficult determining what sin is, when I believe it has already been spelled out for us, but because no one can seem to meet that standard set by it, the world argues over what should be permissible and what shouldn't be, and whether they should make one set of rules for all, or by an individual by individual basis, for example Medical uses only of marijuana, being permissible for those with a medical reason, and not permissible for those without one (as just one example)....

Also, the world and philosophical ethics gets into debates over moral dilemmas (cases of Judgement) and is forced to judge over the grey areas, such as Kill to protect, rob the rich to give to the poor, divorce because of domestic abuse, lie to save others from harm, and also the circumstances and story under/about which a violation of the law is committed and the reasons behind them, which should be all taken into account and carefully weighed out when pronouncing a sentence on someone, by a judge...

I feel sorry for judges, must be a very, very difficult to job to right and properly and see that the right and correct amount of justice/judgment is done based upon circumstances...

Yeah, too bad that your god (while being great at putting up broad unrealistic and unmeetable standards) is leaving us to our own devices when it comes to real life moral questions and dilemmas.

 

[Neogaia777]

Yeah, too bad that your god (while being great at putting up broad unrealistic and unmeetable standards) is leaving us to our own devices when it comes to real life moral questions and dilemmas.

Yeah, well I believe the Bible and God are more like "teaching a man to fish, and he can feed himself for a lifetime" vs. "catching a fish everyday for a man to eat"

In that way we are left to our own devices, because of respect by our God of our free will and choice, and his wanting to see what his children can create, rather than just doing everything for them, like potty training, you potty train a child (teach) them while in their infancy, but once they've got it down, their expected to do (figure out) the rest on their own,

Or like teaching your teenager to drive, and then expecting them to eventually come up with their own "driving style" on their own, you give them the basics, but then they are expected to come up with the rest of their driving style/type on their own...

This is not unlike what kind of governments/societies/systems we come up with, we base most of them, in western society anyways upon (originally) principles in and from the bible, but the style and type and individual "flair" is up to us...

God Bless!

 

[quatona]

In that way we are left to our own devices

...but when we use them you start complaining about it.

 

[abacabb3]

Seeing how many of those different moral views are ascribed to a "faith-based authority", this doesn´t solve the problem of subjectivity. I mean, "faith" is about as subjective a criterium as it gets.

I don't disagree. DO you think I as a CHristian am comfortable that Isalm, Buddhism, and other systems can be effective sources of ethics?

My point is apart from an understanding that moral norms are dictated in the very fabric of existence somehow and that they cannot be disputed, ethics devolves into subjectivity where ultimately anything goes. Because, ultimately, there is no objective morality that can be extrapolated from any material source...and the way we interface without our reality is material.


Pragmatically speaking, and this IS NOT my argument in favor of religion because I am not a pragmatist, it is better that everyone agrees to a lie that makes them feel that they must meet some sort of minimal ethical standard than everyone being taught that they decide their own morality. That leads to anarchy and gross immorality in the eyes we would view it today, but to be honest, if there is no real source of truth pertaining to ethics, even the worst extremes in history really are not unethical.

 

[Neogaia777]

...but when we use them you start complaining about it.

"I" don't, maybe other religious people do, I can't say, but I am entirely "for" the fact of our using our God given right's and talents to do things (figure things out) to and for ourselves...

 

[Paradoxum]

I think logically, a materialist worldview does not allow of a truly objective view of ethics. Ultimately, pragmatism would be the best way of determining what is right and what is wrong.

I don't believe in God, or magical things, but I have justification for a universal morality.

I don't see how belief in God helps you at all. All it does it hide the problem behind God.

I am of the belief that what is wrong is sin, and that the definitions for that come from the Bible, but the world today and philosophy and ethics, seem to be having to be having a difficult determining what sin is, when I believe it has already been spelled out for us,

It is harder to use reason than just reading an old book... that's why reasoned ethics are more difficult to understand. Personally, I have reasoned morals for why things are wrong or right.

but because no one can seem to meet that standard set by it, the world argues over what should be permissible and what shouldn't be, and whether they should make one set of rules for all, or by an individual by individual basis, for example Medical uses only of marijuana, being permissible for those with a medical reason, and not permissible for those without one (as just one example)....

People don't debate ethics because they can't meet your standard, they debate it because they don't necessarily accept your standard. Ie: People disagree with you (that a literal interpretation of the Bible really is moral).

Also, the world and philosophical ethics gets into debates over moral dilemmas (cases of Judgement) and is forced to judge over the grey areas, such as Kill to protect, rob the rich to give to the poor, divorce because of domestic abuse, lie to save others from harm, and also the circumstances and story under/about which a violation of the law is committed and the reasons behind them, which should be all taken into account and carefully weighed out when pronouncing a sentence on someone, by a judge...

Most of the things you mention aren't grey in many cases. Eg: It is obviously okay to divorce because of abuse; and it's obviously okay to lie to protect others from harm.

I feel sorry for judges, must be a very, very difficult to job to right and properly and see that the right and correct amount of justice/judgment is done based upon circumstances...

Yup.

 

[abacabb3]

I don't believe in God, or magical things, but I have justification for a universal morality.

I don't see how belief in God helps you at all. All it does it hide the problem behind God.

How can you justify universal morality unless you can also justify that your own personal opinions are the standards of the universe?

There isn't an universal morality. At least those groups that make a God claim say their ethics are derived from an unchangable, eternal authority. Now, it might all be made up, the existence of ethics does not prove the existence of all these different gods, but at least ethics is something that can be internally consistent in such a system. A materialist worldview cannot allow for such internal consistency.

So, what are your universal ethics? Is abortion right or wrong? Are children supposed to honor their parents? Are people to tell the truth at all times? You really think that you can answer these questions definitively so we can all be convinced that your answer is best?

 

[quatona]

How can you justify universal morality unless you can also justify that your own personal opinions are the standards of the universe?

There isn't an universal morality. At least those groups that make a God claim say their ethics are derived from an unchangable, eternal authority. Now, it might all be made up, the existence of ethics does not prove the existence of all these different gods, but at least ethics is something that can be internally consistent in such a system. A materialist worldview cannot allow for such internal consistency.

So do I get this right? Just by ascribing my ethical system to a god it would get internally consistent?
(As far as I can tell, "internally consistent" has nothing to do whether or what authority we ascribe our beliefs to.)
Although I am not a materialist, I fail to see how materialism would be unable to be internally consistent. It is merely unable to appeal to a non-material authority. Which, from a materialist pov, would be an inconsistency, anyway.

So, what are your universal ethics? Is abortion right or wrong? Are children supposed to honor their parents? Are people to tell the truth at all times? You really think that you can answer these questions definitively so we can all be convinced that your answer is best?

No, I can´t convince everyone that my ethical answers are best, and neither can you, obviously. So what´s your point?

 

[quatona]

How can you justify universal morality unless you can also justify that your own personal opinions are the standards of the universe?

How do you do that without justifying that your personal opinion regarding the existence of the god of your concept are accurate?

 

[Paradoxum]

How can you justify universal morality unless you can also justify that your own personal opinions are the standards of the universe?

Using reason.

There isn't an universal morality. At least those groups that make a God claim say their ethics are derived from an unchangable, eternal authority. Now, it might all be made up, the existence of ethics does not prove the existence of all these different gods, but at least ethics is something that can be internally consistent in such a system. A materialist worldview cannot allow for such internal consistency.

An non-theist morality has an easier time of being consistent than a religious one, since such a morality is more likely to be based on reason, rather than trying to rationalize what an old book says.

My understanding of morality is much clearer and makes more sense now as an atheist than as a Christian.

So, what are your universal ethics?

Well that's quite a big question which one could probably write a book on if one had time to research and write.

I'll try to explain the basis of my understanding of morality in a very simple way. If you want to know more, then ask.

1) Morality is partly a way of acting.
2) Morality is a universal good or bad, that applies to all people.
3) A universal good or bad, that applies to all people, would be considering the subjective good or bad or all individuals equally.
(eg: My wish not to die is equal to your wish not to die).

5) One of the most important parts of this morality would be respecting peoples choices over their sphere of sovereignty (eg: It is their choice what they do with their body and mind... this would disallow things like murder, rape, and assault).

If I had to give a basic principle, it would be 'Respect the will of others as equal to your own'. That is still very vague on it's own though.

I hope that makes sense as a very basic explanation.

Is abortion right or wrong?

It's acceptable because fetus' don't have a self-conscious wish to live. That's the same reason it's okay to kill most animals.

I have a longer explanation... again this is just the basic so I don't have to write too much, unless you want me to.

Are children supposed to honor their parents?

Well this isn't an issues I've thought alot about. I suppose it makes sense for children to respect their parents wishes most of the time, but there will be exceptions.

I'm not claiming to have a fully completely philosophically rigorous understanding on all moral issues. Such an understanding would take time and research, and I'm just 23.

Are people to tell the truth at all times?

Not all the time. An obvious exception would be lying to save a life.

You really think that you can answer these questions definitively so we can all be convinced that your answer is best?

I think I have a basic moral theory which has the potential to answer everything... but I haven't got through every issues, or most issues yet.

 

[KCfromNC]

That leads to anarchy and gross immorality in the eyes we would view it today, but to be honest, if there is no real source of truth pertaining to ethics, even the worst extremes in history really are not unethical.

Define what you mean by really ethical. If morality is subjective, that's a category error to even ask the question. If so, we have to revert to other standards to measure the success of a moral framework.

 

[abacabb3]

How do you do that without justifying that your personal opinion regarding the existence of the god of your concept are accurate?

I can't, because there isn't any demonstrable evidence of it.

In fact, that's my whole argument. Without a besless truth claim, like that of the faith groups, there is no basis in which to have a moral system. Unless there is some agreed upon standard, it is every man doing what is right in his own eyes.


SO, I didn't prove the existence of morality, that I cannot even do. Ethics, however, can only be consistent if they have an agrred upon basis. If everyone gets to decide using their "reason" you will get conflicting ethical values.

 

[abacabb3]

Define what you mean by really ethical. If morality is subjective, that's a category error to even ask the question. If so, we have to revert to other standards to measure the success of a moral framework.

Honestly, I think the whole idea is subjective and an illusion. Pretending that it has some sort of firm basis, like a god saying what's right and wrong, practically solves the problem. If the faith happens to be true, there is a true source of ethics.

 

[abacabb3]

Using reason.

Problem is that reasonable people come to different conclusions.

An non-theist morality has an easier time of being consistent than a religious one, since such a morality is more likely to be based on reason, rather than trying to rationalize what an old book says.

I agree in all but one point. Without a unquestionable authority, we will run into contradicting morals

My understanding of morality is much clearer and makes more sense now as an atheist than as a Christian.

To you perhaps, but it does not have a basis outside of your opinion.

I'll try to explain the basis of my understanding of morality in a very simple way. If you want to know more, then ask.

1) Morality is partly a way of acting.
2) Morality is a universal good or bad, that applies to all people.
3) A universal good or bad, that applies to all people, would be considering the subjective good or bad or all individuals equally.
(eg: My wish not to die is equal to your wish not to die).

These are all good and reasonable. My Bible teaches the golden rule too. However, if you're not omniscient and I'm not omniscient, neither of us can guarantee anyone that our universal ethics are any good.

However, if there were to be a god who perfectly knew right and wrong, and decreed right and wrong, then we would know for sure that there is an actual source of ethical norms outside of our own opinions. Take the god out of the equation, and it is just a bunch of intelligent people being opinionated coming to different conclusions.

It's acceptable because fetus' don't have a self-conscious wish to live.

How do you know, how can you ask a fetus that does talk? Fetuses start thinking and feeling when they are less than a couple of pounds. At which point is the divider?

I'm not claiming to have a fully completely philosophically rigorous understanding on all moral issues. Such an understanding would take time and research, and I'm just 23.

And that's fine. The point is you never can, because you are just a human being, none of us have the answers to all these things, we just have opinions.

I think I have a basic moral theory which has the potential to answer everything... but I haven't got through every issues, or most issues yet.

Yeah, the Golden Rule, it's 2,000 years old.

 

[abacabb3]

So do I get this right? Just by ascribing my ethical system to a god it would get internally consistent?
(As far as I can tell, "internally consistent" has nothing to do whether or what authority we ascribe our beliefs to.)

Not at all. It is just the only way in which morals have any real basis outside of people just throwing their opinions around.

No, I can´t convince everyone that my ethical answers are best, and neither can you, obviously. So what´s your point?

Morals essentially don't have a basis. Ultimately, we want people to abide by what is right and wrong by some level of faith that we should even care about right and wrong apart from self interest.