Paradigm shifts within ethics suffer violence

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » Paradigm shifts within ethics suffer violence

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 11:01 pm
Paradigm shifts within ethics suffer violence and all of us use violence to stop the progression of these shifts.......This statement sounds provocative perhaps..... I have no answers but I do have many questions In the field of ethics that I hope many will reply to....... As I have wandered threw history with my blindfold of ignorance on I have stumbled upon many things that I wonder about, hoping that you great thinkers will be able to address........ I will not go all the way back in history to the point of inception but rather I will start with Socrates who most of you should know, so there is no need to explain but instead I will move forward to Plato who traveled to Egypt which all of you should know as well, I will then move to Philo who also lived in Egypt who wrote about the Therapeutae.:detective: Philo writes that they were philosophers that claimed they were able to heal the souls or the minds of the people. What do you suppose the therapeutae thought would create a paradigm shift in another person's mind, that would make him/her think differently than what was thought ethical at first? ....That task would seem impossible, By just looking at one defect in philosophy that seems to be shared among most of us OCPD. Well maybe not the full blown disease but it sure does seem that many among us have some traits of OCPD at times. If you disagree just ask your spouse. I will now fall off a cliff that I did not see. This is what the Christians may be thinking of me from this point forward.:devilish: Religion has been used by humans for what ever reason man thinks it needs to be used. Man is not perfect and even if he believes that he has been inspired by god it does not mean for certain that he has..... Our minds have illusions at times.... If you do not know what I mean do a research on the different illusions that the mind can have... There are some examples that are very easy to understand and some so complex that we do not understand them completely as yet....... Baptism seems to have been a tradition even before the Christians. The Jews were known for cleansing themselves from defiled things before they entered into the temple. It seems that a greater importance was given to the cleaning of the outside of things rather than the inside of things. Getting to the point of these questions may seem to be provocative but here goes......Changing water into wine? These healers of the mind, "did they think that the idea of baptizing with water should be changed into something different? Maybe something that would make people behave in a different way, like maybe the way alcohol is able to change the mood of the mind. Something like ABC fine wine and spirits?:drinking: Spirits? Maybe not that type of spirit but even something more different than that. Remember these were philosophers and as we all know great philosophers can be very creative thinkers. How about a holly spirit, one that is all truth, logic and ethical? Could you imagine a person that when taught reason, logic and ethics by forms of parables and fables?.... Having this new wisdom, Being able to hear and understand the words of wisdom being spoken to him, where as before he was deafly ignorant and not able to hear or make sense of them. He is now able to see the way that he should behave where as before he was as blind as I am walking with this blindfold of ignorance stumbling threw life as if he were crippled as if he were spiritually dead. The unexamined life is not worth living. Did the therapeutae believe that man was spiritually dead? ... Could they have viewed this transformation as if they made the blind see, the deaf hear, the crippled to walk and resurrected the spiritualy dead, and so on and so on?.......If you learned ethics and thought that you were just as important as anyone else and that you should not be pushed around nor should you push others around. With this new knowledge of right and wrong and with you sharing it with everyone around. It may have seemed to be a very big threat to the ruling power.... Everyone may start to view some of ruler's ways to be wrong......If you keep spreading truth of ethics around and large numbers of people start to follow you, the rulers may see you as a threat and have you punished or even terminated.......It would be very hard for one who gains wealth directly or indirectly by unethical means to allow a paradigm shift in ethics to take hold. Anyone who has a general knowledge of neuroscience and biology should be well aware that there will never be a perfect utopia, But could it be possible for every family to be more advanced in all areas of interest if mankind were more tuned with true ethics? ...What are true ethics? ...Well maybe we can not know, but could we be better off than what we are now if We spent more time in this field? Or would this bring greater division?.... Thanks for any comments or corrections. You will not hurt my feelings. have I wandered far from logic?
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 05:38 am
@reasoning logic,
It is hard to read your post reasoning logic. You should try to break your writing into coherent paragraphs.

-
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 07:07 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;128166 wrote:
It is hard to read your post reasoning logic. You should try to break your writing into coherent paragraphs.

-
Yes I do agree, The sentences seem to run together. I will need to learn how to properly structure these sentences.
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 07:56 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;128169 wrote:
Yes I do agree, The sentences seem to run together. I will need to learn how to properly structure these sentences.


I have no doubt that with a little practice you will be able to create clear paragraphs reasoning logic.

Perhaps you could begin with just one, two, or three simple paragraphs? This is just a suggestion.

In any event, I am sure the members here will be interested in what you have to say and respond well to your ideas.

Smile
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 09:52 pm
@reasoning logic,
Based on the title of you thread, I have a feeling it is incoherent. Based on the paragraph/sentence structure (or lack thereof), I think I may be right.

I don't understand where violence comes into play into what you want to talk about. There are rarely, if ever, paradigm shifts within ethics. It is not like a society ever decides to shift from utilitarianism to deontology at any given moment that would result in this so-called paradigm shift.
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 07:02 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;128339 wrote:
Based on the title of you thread, I have a feeling it is incoherent. Based on the paragraph/sentence structure (or lack thereof), I think I may be right.

I don't understand where violence comes into play into what you want to talk about. There are rarely, if ever, paradigm shifts within ethics. It is not like a society ever decides to shift from utilitarianism to deontology at any given moment that would result in this so-called paradigm shift.


I hope that we do not see a paradigm shift as you described.

I May be wrong but I would think that many churches may aprove of a deontology aproach. I would rather see people use reason and logic when they consider ethics. When I say reason I mean for a person to consider for oneself what is moral and immoral. [to reason their own self logic] rather than to take someone's rules that are made up. Do not get me wrong rules should be considered.

So you do not think violence comes into play with ethecs? I thought that we went to war over ethics.

I am sure that you have more than just a feeling about my paragraph/sentence structure.

Give me some slack I am new to this typing thing. Smile

Reasoning Self Logic
 
deepthot
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 09:14 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;128339 wrote:
Based on the title of you thread, I have a feeling it is incoherent. Based on the paragraph/sentence structure (or lack thereof), I think I may be right.

I don't understand where violence comes into play into what you want to talk about. There are rarely, if ever, paradigm shifts within ethics. It is not like a society ever decides to shift from utilitarianism to deontology at any given moment that would result in this so-called paradigm shift.
(Emphasis added.)

If ever??

There are paradigm shifts within ethics. I've proposed one myself. I put together some things you've read here before and added some new material to produce a treatise (a booklet) entitled 'A Unified Theory of Ethics." I consider it quite a shift. I hope it becomes the conventional wisdom. Eventually, I hope every philosopher will say that he (or she) thought of it first. To get the picture it must be read all the way through to the end. Here, safe to open, is a link to it:
http://tinyurl.com/yeneyhv

Within it you will find in this new frame of reference is some emphasis on consequences, some emphasis on character (virtue theory); and some incorporation of Kantian ethics. I want eventually for it to be made into a complete synthesis. This will require the contributions of all of you.... [meaning the members here at the Forum. Let's construct it together, cooperatively -- like the Linux programs were done.] The framework has been provided.

Happy reading !
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 04:39 pm
@deepthot,
deepthot;128775 wrote:
(Emphasis added.)

If ever??

There are paradigm shifts within ethics. I've proposed one myself. I put together some things you've read here before and added some new material to produce a treatise (a booklet) entitled 'A Unified Theory of Ethics." I consider it quite a shift. I hope it becomes the conventional wisdom. Eventually, I hope every philosopher will say that he (or she) thought of it first. To get the picture it must be read all the way through to the end. Here, safe to open, is a link to it:
http://tinyurl.com/yeneyhv

Within it you will find in this new frame of reference is some emphasis on consequences, some emphasis on character (virtue theory); and some incorporation of Kantian ethics. I want eventually for it to be made into a complete synthesis. This will require the contributions of all of you.... [meaning the members here at the Forum. Let's construct it together, cooperatively -- like the Linux programs were done.] The framework has been provided.

Happy reading !
I have read 42 pages so far and yes it is good reading. I just wish many more people took ethics as serious as you do. I do believe that we need to find a way to get the layman intrested as I think it will require them to make a shift. I am not sure that you mean this. [I hope every philosopher will say that he (or she) thought of it first]
Because if it were true, I would not be sure that they learned ethics. [ meaning that they were lieing about thinking of it first.Smile
 
deepthot
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 08:56 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;129448 wrote:
I have read 42 pages so far and yes it is good reading. I just wish many more people took ethics as serious as you do. I do believe that we need to find a way to get the layman intrested as I think it will require them to make a shift. I am not sure that you mean this. [I hope every philosopher will say that he (or she) thought of it first]
Because if it were true, I would not be sure that they learned ethics. [ meaning that they were lieing about thinking of it first.Smile



I was just paraphrasing some quote from Schopenhauer, who said that solid new contributions to the history of thought go through phases:
First they are rejected. Then they become conventional. Then everyone claims ownership of the ideas. I cannot say at this early stage that the Hartman/Katz contribution to ethics will have that kind of impact, but you must admit it is a novel paradigm.

Here is a Description I wrote for the mini-treatise:

http://tinyurl.com/yeneyhv


Description of A Unified Theory of Ethics:
This essay on Ethics is a work in progress. It is an invitation to continue the process of constructing a unified theory which will suggest hypotheses to be empirically tested, employing scientific methods. Eventually this will result in a secular foundation for a universal ethics which will be both objective in its theoretical principles as well as subjective in application.

It has room within the new frame-of-refence to be a synthesis of many, diverse stands of already-known ethical insight from all schools and traditions of ethics. Some day, with your help, it will incorporate the best of Natural rights, Virtue Theory, Mill's Utilitarianism; yes, and even the best concepts from Oriental Philosophy, from Buddhist Philosophy, from Shinto Philosophy, etc.

I welcome all you critiques, suggestions for improvement, questions, and comments.

Sincerely,
deepthot
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 11:01 pm
@deepthot,
reasoning logic;128061 wrote:
Could you imagine a person that when taught reason, logic and ethics by forms of parables and fables?.... Having this new wisdom, Being able to hear and understand the words of wisdom being spoken to him, where as before he was deafly ignorant and not able to hear or make sense of them. He is now able to see the way that he should behave where as before he was as blind as I am walking with this blindfold of ignorance stumbling threw life as if he were crippled as if he were spiritually dead. The unexamined life is not worth living. Did the therapeutae believe that man was spiritually dead? ... Could they have viewed this transformation as if they made the blind see, the deaf hear, the crippled to walk and resurrected the spiritualy dead, and so on and so on?.......If you learned ethics and thought that you were just as important as anyone else and that you should not be pushed around nor should you push others around. With this new knowledge of right and wrong and with you sharing it with everyone around. It may have seemed to be a very big threat to the ruling power.... Everyone may start to view some of ruler's ways to be wrong......If you keep spreading truth of ethics around and large numbers of people start to follow you, the rulers may see you as a threat and have you punished or even terminated.......It would be very hard for one who gains wealth directly or indirectly by unethical means to allow a paradigm shift in ethics to take hold. Anyone who has a general knowledge of neuroscience and biology should be well aware that there will never be a perfect utopia, But could it be possible for every family to be more advanced in all areas of interest if mankind were more tuned with true ethics? ...What are true ethics? ...Well maybe we can not know, but could we be better off than what we are now if We spent more time in this field? Or would this bring greater division?.... Thanks for any comments or corrections. You will not hurt my feelings. have I wandered far from logic?



I dont think any of the prosposition above has anything to do with formal Logic, although everything mans says has something to do with logic.

Now, IMHO, there are some good philosophical questions here. What makes a human specie a creature of moral sense? This should be interesting. Based on this answer, i think we can find the path towards the ethical nature of human behaviour.

I would tend to believe that humans are essentially animalistic. It is by virtue of some thoughtful men and women, the human society hurned from an essentially savage state of behaviour to a barbarian state and eventually has progessed to a civilised state of living, into which you and me has been born. These changes do bring paradigm shifts. It happens while any tradition is questioned, and it more or less follows that violence becomes a natural fallout. Therefore, i think you are right in your basic inference.


Theaetetus;128339 wrote:
There are rarely, if ever, paradigm shifts within ethics. It is not like a society ever decides to shift from utilitarianism to deontology at any given moment that would result in this so-called paradigm shift.


....... depends on which kind of society and paradigm you are confining to. Society does not decide on such shifts, rather the idea evolves.


reasoning logic;129448 wrote:
. I do believe that we need to find a way to get the layman intrested as I think it will require them to make a shift. I am not sure that you mean this. [I hope every philosopher will say that he (or she) thought of it first]
Because if it were true, I would not be sure that they learned ethics. [ meaning that they were lieing about thinking of it first.Smile



The very nature and concept of ethics suggests that it was not bottom-up but top-down.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 12:45 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;129520 wrote:
...I would tend to believe that humans are essentially animalistic. It is by virtue of some thoughtful men and women, the human society hurned from an essentially savage state ...and eventually has progessed to a civilised state of living, into which you and me has been born. These changes do bring paradigm shifts. It happens while any tradition is questioned....


BTW, have you noticed, Jack, that on pp. 48-49 I stress repeatedly - hence agreeing with you - that humans are animals, one and the same. There I also concisely explain how and why we differ from other creatures. The fields of Moral Psychology and Evolutionary Psychobiology have probed deeply into the issues of human evolution, both physical and cultural, so in my essay I leave that explication largely up to those scientists. A good case can be made that we were mild-mannered gatherers and agrarians before we became barbarians. One author, I faintly recall, did write an entire book arguing that case back in the '50s. (The Garden of Eden story I would contend is not all pure mythology: the first humans differed from the Neanderthals because the former were not savage, but were frugivorous like the gorillas are today, though not nearly as strong as gorillas- as Ashley Montague has copiously pointed out. The humans lived by their wits, thus managing to survive.)

Do you agree that as philosophers proceed to clarify concepts (such as the concept "human species") they should point our similarities and differences? That is what I attempted to do, though very sketchily. I appreciate the work of Desmond Morris; enjoyed reading his book, THE NAKED APE.


Jackofalltrades;129520 wrote:

The very nature and concept of ethics suggests that it was not bottom-up but top-down.


Jack, would you please tell a bit more about what you mean when you say "it was top-down? How was our sense of decency and civilization imposed from above - if that's what you meant? Do we behave ethically because some elite did first? Do you mean that Professors Kant, Mill, Sidgwick, Anscombe were the "top" and their students were the "bottom"?? Or just what is meant here?

I would much appreciate some clarification of what you had in mind when you wrote: "The very nature and concept of ethics suggests that it was not bottom-up but top-down."
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 05:34 am
@reasoning logic,
Hi....... we are meeting for the first time, ...a big hello to you

I have frankly not read your..... link. I will do that, as the first few pages seems interesting. So no quarrels as of now.

Now to the top-down issue. Yes, you are almost correct. The point here is that humans as a society is a mutual understanding collective. Of thoughts and actions.

When thought progressed, it has revealed itself in a pattern. We see it throughout history and even today. This is no rocket science, as they say. We can easily deduce this, and as history suggests, we have numerous examples of few men, and women too, who are the prime movers and shakers of opinion, thoughts and observations. Formalised opinions and the mutually beneficial nature of human requirements viz the individual, society and the state took the form of Law. This is obvious i suppose.

Ethics and ethical consideration is perhaps a fallout of human need to survive in a peaceful manner. Experience did taught humans to give value to peace. To acheive peace, i think, logically, the only means was to appeal to the growing emotional need of the human mind. This thinking or thought processes were a result of contemplation of the intellectual man and woman. Only the wise, the intelligent, the leaders, the shamans, could bring about the value of morals into an individual and later in a societal scale.

History does indicate this trend, and allow a fact of morality being preached down to the masses. I would rule out any kind of intuitive sense of morality or ethical behaviour.
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 07:58 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;129624 wrote:
Hi....... we are meeting for the first time, ...a big hello to you

I have frankly not read your..... link. I will do that, as the first few pages seems interesting. So no quarrels as of now.

Now to the top-down issue. Yes, you are almost correct. The point here is that humans as a society is a mutual understanding collective. Of thoughts and actions.

When thought progressed, it has revealed itself in a pattern. We see it throughout history and even today. This is no rocket science, as they say. We can easily deduce this, and as history suggests, we have numerous examples of few men, and women too, who are the prime movers and shakers of opinion, thoughts and observations. Formalised opinions and the mutually beneficial nature of human requirements viz the individual, society and the state took the form of Law. This is obvious i suppose.

Ethics and ethical consideration is perhaps a fallout of human need to survive in a peaceful manner. Experience did taught humans to give value to peace. To acheive peace, i think, logically, the only means was to appeal to the growing emotional need of the human mind. This thinking or thought processes were a result of contemplation of the intellectual man and woman. Only the wise, the intelligent, the leaders, the shamans, could bring about the value of morals into an individual and later in a societal scale.

History does indicate this trend, and allow a fact of morality being preached down to the masses. I would rule out any kind of intuitive sense of morality or ethical behaviour.



It is nice to see that you have a interest in this field as most others could care less to give it a deep consideration as you have.
I do believe that you are right about what you wrote for the most part. experience does seem to be a vital role in learning morality and immorality.
I do have a few questions. Do you think that only the wise, the intelligent, the leaders, the shamans were able to have a clear view of immorality?
Example Who would be the most artisticaly capable of painting a descriptive picture of the grievous acts of immorality? The perpetrator or the victom, the master or the slave, the rapist or the person being raped.? Is immorality bias? intelligent people and illiterate as well? Did leaders of high intellect selective breed their slaves?
Does the old testament teach that the slaves could be punished as long as they did not die before a couple of days after beating them? But it would be ok if they died after three days?

The torah seems to have cleaned up slavery in it's book, as it reads that a slave should be treated as yourself. but the slave was still the master's property and if the master gave the slave a wife, then slave and wife had children, the children belong to the master. It was not all that bad thow, If the slave was able to be set free [meaning that he was not from a foreign country], then if he would like to spend the rest of his life with his familly all he had to do was go to the temple and let all the priest know that he would be the masters slave for life and have his ear pierce to show this bond. It seems rather nice how moral that the inteligent people were back then does it not?


I do not see how we can have a paradigm shift within ethics without finding simple ways of showing the layman, and these Ideas need to be quick and to the point as the laymen is not interested in this subject and will lose focus very fast.
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 11:14 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;129782 wrote:
Do you think that only the wise, the intelligent, the leaders, the shamans were able to have a clear view of immorality?


Morality or the lack of it, is a psycho-social reality. It is the observer who sees, thinks and formulates an idea. The Observer has to be intelligent, without which no insight or understanding can be acheived. So 'only' those who have the faculty to note and denote the underlying facts and subtleties of life may have a 'clear view' of moral values.

reasoning logic;129782 wrote:
Example Who would be the most artisticaly capable of painting a descriptive picture of the grievous acts of immorality? The perpetrator or the victom, the master or the slave, the rapist or the person being raped.?


A good question. An act of harm, mental or physical is an act of natural attributes. The perpetrator and the victim of an act are the ones who are experiencing. If supposing, both the victim and the offender, co-incidently were poets of some kind of repute:sarcastic:, they may formulate a moral code [with rhyming words like in the Psalms :-)] by describing the trauma one has gone through in their future; but, i suppose it would be the wise and the intelligent, who having observed the act notice the harm, an 'immoral' act does to the individual and partly to the society.


reasoning logic;129782 wrote:
Is immorality bias? intelligent people and illiterate as well? Did leaders of high intellect selective breed their slaves?
Does the old testament teach that the slaves could be punished as long as they did not die before a couple of days after beating them? But it would be ok if they died after three days?

The torah seems to have cleaned up slavery in it's book, as it reads that a slave should be treated as yourself. but the slave was still the master's property and if the master gave the slave a wife, then slave and wife had children, the children belong to the master. It was not all that bad thow, If the slave was able to be set free [meaning that he was not from a foreign country], then if he would like to spend the rest of his life with his familly all he had to do was go to the temple and let all the priest know that he would be the masters slave for life and have his ear pierce to show this bond. It seems rather nice how moral that the inteligent people were back then does it not?


The topic of slavery is a bit unnerving for me. I think after the end of aparthied in the fag end of the last century, and millennia, there cannot be any discussion on it, other than academic, even if the fading scriptures do not allude to its immorality.

reasoning logic;129782 wrote:
I do not see how we can have a paradigm shift within ethics without finding simple ways of showing the layman, and these Ideas need to be quick and to the point as the laymen is not interested in this subject and will lose focus very fast.


The doubt in your expression is a valid one. Quite thoughtful. Unless, it is clear what kind of paradigm shift is envisaged, or desirable, i am afarid one cannot makes those vital bulleted 'commandments' for the laymen to follow.
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 03:11 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;129846 wrote:
Morality or the lack of it, is a psycho-social reality. It is the observer who sees, thinks and formulates an idea. The Observer has to be intelligent, without which no insight or understanding can be acheived. So 'only' those who have the faculty to note and denote the underlying facts and subtleties of life may have a 'clear view' of moral values.



A good question. An act of harm, mental or physical is an act of natural attributes. The perpetrator and the victim of an act are the ones who are experiencing. If supposing, both the victim and the offender, co-incidently were poets of some kind of repute:sarcastic:, they may formulate a moral code [with rhyming words like in the Psalms :-)] by describing the trauma one has gone through in their future; but, i suppose it would be the wise and the intelligent, who having observed the act notice the harm, an 'immoral' act does to the individual and partly to the society.




The topic of slavery is a bit unnerving for me. I think after the end of aparthied in the fag end of the last century, and millennia, there cannot be any discussion on it, other than academic, even if the fading scriptures do not allude to its immorality.



The doubt in your expression is a valid one. Quite thoughtful. Unless, it is clear what kind of paradigm shift is envisaged, or desirable, i am afarid one cannot makes those vital bulleted 'commandments' for the laymen to follow.

It does apear that in my final comment that I have agreed with you that someone will have to show the layman as he is not able to understand the consequences of the act of immorality that he is causing on society. I think education rather than commandments would be the best way for a shift to begin. but then again it does apear that force has been used before to change society's laws of immorality.
I do think that we are all the lamen until we understand. It seems to me that immorality against others is is a type of slavery that continues to this day. Rape seems to be slavery though it is only for the period of time that the perpetrator makes it happen.Smile
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 05:58 am
@reasoning logic,
true...... Education is a powerful tool to meet the goals of taming immorality. But i seriously and sincerely doubt its efficacy to eliminate immorality totality. Religion is an education. It has not helped, though, i should assert. But this assertion, i should add, may hide the fact, that religion has indeed helped man become more civilised. However, to meet the end of immorality is a very difficult task because inherent human behaviour will not change unless a kind of mutation takes place which would inhibit immorality.

Rape is bad, but i doubt whether rape can be confined to history, irrespective of the strides of education.

Edit: To further add, on the suggestions that modern day commandments may help the shift, it was because you had alluded to 'simple ways' of making the layman compliant. And i thought 'commandments' may help in a speedier way than the process of education. You did refer to 'force'. Commandments are a powerful moral force.

But anyway, i do not insist on 'commandments' as though a tablet will help solve the problem. What i meant was 'a code for all do's and dont's. And i suppose thats what ethics is all about for the laymen.

Now, these were mere arguments to support the points. I would really like to dwell on the paradigm shift the OP had raised. What is or was the Paradigm A in which we are, and what is that ideal Paradigm B which we need to shift into?. And how we can avoid violence while doing so?.
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 06:42 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;129949 wrote:
true...... Education is a powerful tool to meet the goals of taming immorality. But i seriously and sincerely doubt its efficacy to eliminate immorality totality. Religion is an education. It has not helped, though, i should assert. But this assertion, i should add, may hide the fact, that religion has indeed helped man become more civilised. However, to meet the end of
Rape is bad, but i doubt whether rape can be confined to history, irrespective of the strides of education.

Edit: To further add, on the suggestions that modern day commandments may help the shift, it was because you had alluded to 'simple ways' of making the layman compliant. And i thought 'commandments' may help in a speedier way than the process of education. You did refer to 'force'. Commandments are a powerful moral force.

But anyway, i do not insist on 'commandments' as though a tablet will help solve the problem. What i meant was 'a code for all do's and dont's. And i suppose thats what ethics is all about for the laymen.

Now, these were mere arguments to support the points. I would really like to dwell on the paradigm shift the OP had raised. What is or was the Paradigm A in which we are, and what is that ideal Paradigm B which we need to shift into?. And how we can avoid violence while doing so?.

Your quote [ immorality is a very difficult task because inherent human behaviour will not change unless a kind of mutation takes place which would inhibit immorality.] Like I have already said there will never be a perfect utopia because biology is not perfect. example .. I can only guess that you know that there will be at some point in time, when one of your descendants will be born mentaly handicap and another one of your descendants could be as smart as a [rocket scientest so to speak,] It may be a few hundred years but eventually biology will take its course.
If this statement holds true then this also means that you will also have a wide range of family members that will also be in the grey area, that lies between these two extremes, which I would think explains why all of your love ones may not be able to understand ethics as well as some of the others will be able to some degree.


Now about the paradigm shift I do apologise as you very well know ethics can be a very complex subject. Example just read some of the post that are here in this forum, If you were to read them as a layman you would think what do all of these long and foriegn words mean that these philosophers are useing.

I do apologise for all of the statements and questions that I have used as some were just questions that I have and some are for the reader to consider so that the reader may have some clue of what I think I may know, or should I say what many will think, [what I am being decieved of]. Regardless of the case I would like to share some of my view points with the reader. I can only hope that the reader will not give up on me as the layman would have a long time ago.

Please bear with me the tip of the iceberg is soon to come. If I am not mistaken I only need to ask a few more questions that I hope will give the reader a few more view points and then I would like to question the reader about their morals torward there love ones such as their mothers fathers and so forth and then I will start to show what I think is the tip of the iceberg. Thank you for not giving up on me as of yet. Smile

Reasoning Self Logic
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 10:51 am
@reasoning logic,
I would like to ask the reader a few simple Hypothetical questions.:painting: keep in mind that these are hypothetical and that I am in no means saying that they are reality.

Are there any readers who would believe to themselves that any of the following questions would be immoral or unacceptable behavior? If so please explain why.

1. Would it be morally acceptable If I cloned humans that would supply labor for all the rest of us? These clones would enjoy working for all us and work would be their greatest pleasure.

2 Would it be immoral If I am highly intellectual and I am able to come up with a scheme that would convince the intellectually challenged to be my work force?

I could hire administrators who would over see all of this, so that I could have more leisure time to come up with other great schemes.
My administrators would have other people under them analysts, managers and so forth to teach the people that competition and rank are most important.

If I am clever enough the people will demand competition and rank as if it were their divine right, and if I am lucky my philosophy that I teach will seem more important than morality, Which in return would help me to keep the wages of the people low and my personal profits high.

[Meaning that if I could hire the person who is capable of performing a job and is in the most desperate situation caused by his/her environmental or psychological situation that my philosophy helps to create.
he/she may accept a wage 1,000 times less per year than I would, therefore I would be able to reap from his/her misfortunate situation and all the other laborers as well who have agreed with my philosophy.] I could call this my great pyramid.
Me at the top and the most intellectually challenged laboring at the bottom. I could find a place for the reader in the middle if he/she would like to go to college and learn old and new technologies.

I could even pay the churches to preach my philosophy along with mythology that the people are so desperately wanting to hear:rules:

The priests can be my informants that can let me know of any type of paradigm shift that might be taking place so that I will know how to respond and use it towards my advantage to make even more wealth for myself.:detective:
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 10:19 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;130289 wrote:
The priests can be my informants that can let me know of any type of paradigm shift that might be taking place so that I will know how to respond and use it towards my advantage to make even more wealth for myself.:detective:


Ahh..... now, i got what you meant by paradigm shifts. Thanks for the last sentence. now to the questions.

I like examples. Thats brings focus.
Quote:

1. Would it be morally acceptable If I cloned humans that would supply labor for all the rest of us? These clones would enjoy working for all us and work would be their greatest pleasure.


Morally wrong. Violation of natural law. In my view, cloning is unacceptable.

Quote:

2 Would it be immoral If I am highly intellectual and I am able to come up with a scheme that would convince the intellectually challenged to be my work force?


Morally not wrong. Continuation of natural law. In my view, giving employment is a good thing to do, instead of spending in frivolous pursuits.
 
groundedspirit
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 11:07 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;130289 wrote:


1. Would it be morally acceptable If I cloned humans that would supply labor for all the rest of us? These clones would enjoy working for all us and work would be their greatest pleasure.

2 Would it be immoral If I am highly intellectual and I am able to come up with a scheme that would convince the intellectually challenged to be my work force?



Excellent questions.

In question #1 it seems we would eventually come down to a debate about what constitutes a state of "being alive" and what responsibility/respect is (morally) due something that is "alive". Because other than that, one could look at a human as nothing more than a functional combination of atoms (matter) no different than steel & silicon (a robot for example). To do otherwise will force us to place special value on the concept of "alive" beyond such a combination of matter.

In question #2 it seems we would end up in a place of discussion of the role of "happiness" within a human and our own views we hold regarding the morality of 'manipulation' of a living thing for the benefit of other than that thing. This question of course is a question of the morality of our current mode of operation in the world as exactly this is, and has been, taking place for thousands of years.
By "convince" you are implying that their state would be one of contentment & happiness which in some circles is considered the epitome of the human condition.

But both of these questions bring into question a living entity's ability to think, reason & question. As long as that ability is present it seems any state of happiness & contentment will be beyond reach and therefore both questions will eventually fall to a state of 'immorality' if we accept that a some point both examples of people will grow beyond the boundaries we have chosen to impose on them, at which point we will be responsibile for their state of unhappiness and ensuing violence.

GS
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » Paradigm shifts within ethics suffer violence
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/01/2020 at 11:33:40