Paradigm shifts within ethics suffer violence

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

reasoning logic
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 05:39 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;134478 wrote:
The scenario of your exercise/example, is not so atypical. By which i mean that history has many examples, and the sifting of values after the incident or experiences take splace adds morality as the residual cream of all human experiences.

The protoganist of your example is in all of us. We all try and get the best out of a situation, we exploit our resources includng resources called as 'parents'...... The intelligent, the cunning, the powerful, ........ three braod classifications of human tendencies - have always playeds to their self interest or selfishness.

Today it is no longer the survival of the fittest, it is survival of the educated, intelligent, cunning and powerful forces or groups.

Now, to the tough love issue. Although i am a bit less experienced or educated in the concept of 'love', i do believe it is a kind of selfishness. I may be able to dwelve on that if you can explain what it means by 'tough love'

edit/

ps:I am glad to inform deepthot that i have read upto 35th page of his treatise on A.U.T.O.E......Smile


Yes I do see your point! [Today it is no longer the survival of the fittest, it is survival of the educated, intelligent, cunning and powerful forces or groups] I do wonder what types of ++ and - -that our moral thinking has on society. economically and psychologically. I wonder if we would prosper even more or less as a society if we took a different approach.

My use of tough love is vague I was meaning that your mom and dad would have to figure their problems out for themselves. no more empathy from you than that.

There is no right or wrong answers to my hypothetical questions. I am only learning other point of views other than my own. Even if I disagree with your point of view it does not mean that my point of view is correct. It is not like I can change someone's mind, only they can. and I do believe that this comes by new info added to the mind. Who knows I may change my mind. Smile
It would be nice to hear answers from you and others to the question in post 39.:detective:
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 12:20 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:

Would it be immoral If you are highly intellectual and are able to come up with a scheme that would convince the intellectually challenged to be your work force?

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

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

[Meaning that if you 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 your philosophy helps to create.
he/she may accept a wage 1,000 times less per year than you would, therefore you would be able to reap from his/her misfortunate situation and all the other laborers as well who have agreed with your philosophy.] You could call this your great pyramid.
You at the top and the most intellectually challenged laboring at the bottom. You 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.

You could even [tithe] pay the churches to preach your philosophy along with mythology that the people are so desperately wanting to hear:rules:

The priests can be your informants that can let you know of any type of paradigm shift that might be taking place so that you will know how to respond and use it towards your advantage to make even more wealth for yourself.:detective:

Now lets just say that your mother or father or the one who is close to your heart just happens to be intellectually challenged or environmentally challenged. Would you give them a break? or would you say sorry mom and dad it is just tough love.


Frankly R.L'gic, your question is a bit vague. But still i will make an attempt to try and give my opinion.
An highly intellectual person is a leader or a guru.

Both these category of people make others work to acheive their own goals. But if their goal is to see a transformation taking place for a 'good' to happen, then i dont think their is any problem with that. But on the other hand, if one conives and conspires to exploit certain section of the populace to acheive their selfish goals with selfish means, than history does teach such people/persons lessons in a hard way. For e.g Hitler, whom i would fit into a highly intellectual person categorisation.

Now, as per the tough love issue is concerned...... only a tyrant or a fool would make his parents work for him or treat them just like any other servant.
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 06:01 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;135444 wrote:
Frankly R.L'gic, your question is a bit vague. But still i will make an attempt to try and give my opinion.
An highly intellectual person is a leader or a guru.

Both these category of people make others work to acheive their own goals. But if their goal is to see a transformation taking place for a 'good' to happen, then i dont think their is any problem with that. But on the other hand, if one conives and conspires to exploit certain section of the populace to acheive their selfish goals with selfish means, than history does teach such people/persons lessons in a hard way. For e.g Hitler, whom i would fit into a highly intellectual person categorisation.

Now, as per the tough love issue is concerned...... only a tyrant or a fool would make his parents work for him or treat them just like any other servant.


I do seem to agree with you and I could not have put it any better myself. I do have a question about the last part!

[Now, as per the tough love issue is concerned...... only a tyrant or a fool would make his parents work for him or treat them just like any other servant]

I do understand! [at least I think I do] If you were the person in the hypothetical example that I had used, you would be ok with the morals of the person but you would treat your parents better than your servants correct?Smile
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 12:01 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;135673 wrote:
If you were the person in the hypothetical example that I had used, you would be ok with the morals of the person but you would treat your parents better than your servants correct?Smile



Oh oh!........ you got me there, i suppose. This is tricky. Going by your hypothetical situation, i am supposed to be highly intellectual....... than my morals will be dictated by the alleged 'good' that i claim i am doing. If my parents willingly work for that cause, i suppose i would 'allow' that to happen........that is working 'for' me. Am I right or wrong?


edit:

Okay, I have just finished reading deepthots link (is Katz = deepthot ?) and treatise on A Unified Theory Of Ethics. At the outset it is a good compilation of thoughts on Ethics, it has briefly dealt with different definitions, applications and aspects of Ethics. It has chosen a style of presenting a transcript of a group discussion taken place somewhere rather than a narrative style that we often read and see.

The short book does touch upon many different notions related to Ethics. The examples on moral judgements were also very interesting to read.

My first thoughts after reading it is that of a mixed feelings. Like its an admirable effort to acheive some kind of a scientific basis to Ethics is controversial, since i think the social scientists are somehow desperate to bring social science into the realm of scientific philosophy and gain recognition and acceptance as a true empirical science. However, we know that it is very difficult to prove exactly why a man behaves as he behaves. To objectify the reasons for mans action has been a continous process for jurists, judges, social scientists, psychologists, anthropologists etc.......... and i personally think they fail more often to pin point the exact reason for misbehaviour.

Well, i think i may have transgressed the topic, or perhaps condescending but i feel, the meaning of Ethics - is always in a flux. What is an ideal behaviour?..... I think Ethics tries to psychologically bind human mind to a path of action between natural instincts and an ideal state of living. Morals are contextual values created to meet an temporal end or goal.

The book has indeed done well to bring out the realtionships between values, morals and recommended behaviour, and how it helps the individual and society. The Means-Ends chapter was quite enlightening, and explained how one means determines an end, and each enad than becomes a mean to acheive another end. This cyclic movement of morals, in the psycho -social context is the core of the problem of Ethics. Or for Ethics. ............... got to end here to take a break.
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 04:36 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;135787 wrote:
Oh oh!........ you got me there, i suppose. This is tricky. Going by your hypothetical situation, i am supposed to be highly intellectual....... than my morals will be dictated by the alleged 'good' that i claim i am doing. If my parents willingly work for that cause, i suppose i would 'allow' that to happen........that is working 'for' me. Am I right or wrong?


edit:

Okay, I have just finished reading deepthots link (is Katz = deepthot ?) and treatise on A Unified Theory Of Ethics. At the outset it is a good compilation of thoughts on Ethics, it has briefly dealt with different definitions, applications and aspects of Ethics. It has chosen a style of presenting a transcript of a group discussion taken place somewhere rather than a narrative style that we often read and see.

The short book does touch upon many different notions related to Ethics. The examples on moral judgements were also very interesting to read.

My first thoughts after reading it is that of a mixed feelings. Like its an admirable effort to acheive some kind of a scientific basis to Ethics is controversial, since i think the social scientists are somehow desperate to bring social science into the realm of scientific philosophy and gain recognition and acceptance as a true empirical science. However, we know that it is very difficult to prove exactly why a man behaves as he behaves. To objectify the reasons for mans action has been a continous process for jurists, judges, social scientists, psychologists, anthropologists etc.......... and i personally think they fail more often to pin point the exact reason for misbehaviour.

Well, i think i may have transgressed the topic, or perhaps condescending but i feel, the meaning of Ethics - is always in a flux. What is an ideal behaviour?..... I think Ethics tries to psychologically bind human mind to a path of action between natural instincts and an ideal state of living. Morals are contextual values created to meet an temporal end or goal.

The book has indeed done well to bring out the realtionships between values, morals and recommended behaviour, and how it helps the individual and society. The Means-Ends chapter was quite enlightening, and explained how one means determines an end, and each enad than becomes a mean to acheive another end. This cyclic movement of morals, in the psycho -social context is the core of the problem of Ethics. Or for Ethics. ............... got to end here to take a break.


I do have to admit that it is hard for me to get to the point of view that I am trying to share and it is no fault of your's or any other reader, It would be mine as I have a poor way of explaining my point of view.

I would like to say thank you for puting up with me for this long, "As you can see all the other repliers lost interest a long time ago but there still seems to be many readers.

Your quote. [my morals will be dictated by the alleged 'good' that i claim i am doing. If my parents willingly work for that cause, i suppose i would 'allow' that to happen........that is working 'for' me. Am I right or wrong?]

Like I have said there is no right or wrong answers only point of views, as I have no answers only questions.

You also state that [only a tyrant or a fool would make his parents work for him or treat them just like any other servant]

When you refer to people that work for you are you saying that you would treat them harsh as a tyrant or a fool would treat their workers? The reason I ask is because you seem to have empathy for your parents and would like to see them treated differently than your workers or servants.

I do not mean to come across the wrong way I am only trying to see your point of view.
Would you pay your mother or father 1000 times less than what you would work for, being that you are all working for the same good?Smile
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 09:09 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;136117 wrote:

You also state that [only a tyrant or a fool would make his parents work for him or treat them just like any other servant]

When you refer to people that work for you are you saying that you would treat them harsh as a tyrant or a fool would treat their workers? The reason I ask is because you seem to have empathy for your parents and would like to see them treated differently than your workers or servants.


Oh I see, now i think i got what you intent to get at.

Look, no matter how much i would like to treat them equally, i.e the workers and my parents, i would have empathy towards my parents in my treatment. So yes you are correct.


reasoning logic;136117 wrote:
I do not mean to come across the wrong way I am only trying to see your point of view.
Would you pay your mother or father 1000 times less than what you would work for, being that you are all working for the same good?Smile


See i can't relate myself to the situation, thats my problem....... from this hypothetical several scenario emerges
1) I would not make my mother work, even if i am able to make my father work for me.(ha ha) - thats because in our culture Mother is almost God.
2) Even if I make him work, his payment will be commensurate with other workers who does similar work, even if my payment or profit happens to be 1000 times more.
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 07:50 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
I am glad that you value your Mother as you do. Most people in my culture would respond the same as you have about their Mothers also. A sad truth is that we also have many people in our culture that have not talked to their Mothers in years, as they have arguments with them and break off all communications.
We also have mothers that have given birth to healthy babies and place their babies in garbage cans and in other places. But you know this type of behavior has been going on for thousands of years. It seems that even intelligent people have behaved like this. If I am not mistaken I have read the works of a great philosopher who wrote of how it requires a experienced lady to determine whether a child should be put on top of the hill to die. It may not of been all that bad though as I have read that not all of the babies died, as some people would come and get some of them and turn them into slaves.


I do often wonder what could be the root cause of all of this evil.

[This is not in any way intended to put anyone down but to only give the reader a different point of view, so please keep in check with reality!]

I do hope that this may be the last of the hypothetical questionings that I have to ask on this [one] point of view in order to share my point of view with you and all of the readers.
I would like to ask you and all of the other readers a few more hypothetical questions!
I will try to keep this simple.
If your mother was a maid and cleaned houses for a living, "her pay very well may be at the bottom of our pay scale. Let us imagine that her car broke down and she only had enough money for the parts, "You just happen to be a mechanic. "You look at her car and you see that the water pump went out and that it will take you about six hours to fix it, because the water pump is in a hard place to get to. I can only guess that you would probably help her free of charge?

Now lets say that your mother did not want to see you labor for her free of charge and instead she asked if it would be ok if she cleaned your house washed your cloths and cooked you a good dinner instead.

Would it be immoral of her to ask such a question of you being that you earn $60.00 per hour and she only earns $10.00 per hour? From what you have already shared with me on the love of your mother, it would not be immoral as she may only be trying to say thank you in the only way she knows how.

Now I would like to bring into question our philosophy of competition and rank as it will seem to be what guides her pay scale. [so to speak] We can see how it may seem immoral for us to take advantage of our love ones environmental challenges in a direct way.

We can overcome this view of immorality against our love ones by taking advantage of their environmental and intellectual challenges in a indirect way! They are not as smart as us so they will not see this! You can take advantage of my love ones and I can take advantage of yours and we can trade their labors between ourselves. We can rule and be happy!

We can call this competition and rank! we can teach this philosophy to our love ones in so many ways that it will become the norm and it may seem as a Devine right. Who knows we may even go to war over this one day.

Example. If I was a dentist and your mother had bad teeth and needed help I could fix them in about 2 hours and charge her 1 months worth of her labor. It is not all that bad because you are a mechanic and I have a few cars, a couple of personal water crafts and a boat that will need to be repaired and you will be able to profit off of your own mother as well. I will give you a cut of what I have gained from your mother. Their will be no need to have sorrow for your mother who has labored so hard to feed you and your siblings when you were growing up.
I am sure that many of you will give some of this money back to your own mothers, being that this money was recieved from your mothers laboring right? yes? If Not Then it does appears to me that you also have indirectly raped your own mother of her labors because you have agreed with this philosophy.
Is this the wrong way of viewing this? If so please explain the correct way.:detective:
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Sun 7 Mar, 2010 02:46 am
@reasoning logic,
Hi r'logic

Hey don't feel bad, but i think you are a bit fixated by 'money'/'wages'.

I completely disagree with this notion that a 'mother' has to be taken advantage of. Your philosophy is yours, not mine. I have not agrred to any such 'scheme's which you try and project as a philosophy. Sorry mate.

Your notions are not right, and your ideas are completely wrong. Sorry mate!
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Sun 7 Mar, 2010 07:44 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;137143 wrote:
Hi r'logic

Hey don't feel bad, but i think you are a bit fixated by 'money'/'wages'.

I completely disagree with this notion that a 'mother' has to be taken advantage of. Your philosophy is yours, not mine. I have not agrred to any such 'scheme's which you try and project as a philosophy. Sorry mate.

Your notions are not right, and your ideas are completely wrong. Sorry mate!


Yes you do seem to be right about me being fixated by money/wages.

I am only learning other point of views other than my own from the readers that are willing to share their point of views. Even if I disagree with your point of view it does not mean that my point of view is correct.

I see it like this, I have a very easy job and I am paid more than most people that I come into contact with in my field of work. Most all the people that I come into contact with are skilled laborers. These laborers are mothers, fathers and young people. These people have to work so hard to earn what little they make. I see myself and others being able to have so much more than they have to be sad thing. When I go home I am normally clean and no where near as tired as some of your mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters are.
I see some of your Mothers that are very smart but are in a enviroment that holds them back from advanceing. I also see some of your mothers as being intellectually challenged. Some people say that evil is something that people do. Other people say that evil is something that happens when good men and women do nothing but think of themselves.
Do not get me wrong because I do see a extreme value in intellectual people. [You the reader] [gurus] But I also see a extreme value in labor [your mother, father, brother and sister] as well.
Your notions are not right, and your ideas are completely wrong. Sorry mate![/QUOTE
I am no way trying to start a debate but rather trying to find a different view point. Would you please explain to me how my notions are not right and my ideas are comepletely wrong so that I may be able to come close to seeing this as you see it to be.Smile
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 12:01 am
@reasoning logic,
What do you mean with this statement?....... than i can explain why and how.

Quote:
We can overcome this view of immorality against our love ones by taking advantage of their environmental and intellectual challenges in a indirect way! They are not as smart as us so they will not see this! You can take advantage of my love ones and I can take advantage of yours and we can trade their labors between ourselves. We can rule and be happy!
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 05:45 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;137420 wrote:
What do you mean with this statement?....... than i can explain why and how.


The way I see this is the way I see much of the world behaving today, and this is how we have been doing things from the beginning of time. I could only guess that you would call this natural law because even animals have greed. I do see great problems or challenges and like you have mentioned before how could we have a paradigm shift without violence happening. Well that is why we have great thinkers like you and others to work these problems out. Many say that freedom does not come without a price. If people thought hard enough who knows the price may be minimum but I doubt it.

When competition is taught to us as the norm we seem to accept that this is the best way. Many of us thought that slavery was normal and acceptable. We would put up a stiff resistance to anyone if they were wanting to take away our profits. [ our slaves] Do you think that if you came from a family [1000 years ago] that taught slavery was your devine right and you were given a plantation with a hundred slaves that it would be easy for you to let go of those slaves that help to bring you even more wealth? I hate to admit that I very well may have put up a stiff resistance only because I did not know any beter.

Do you think that there could be any acts of immorality that you could be doing and not be aware of, just as our ancestors were doing? Were our ancestors aware of how cruel or ignorant they were and the ramifications that this had on society? How would you like to be on the receiving end?

We think that we are reasonably moral people today, I often wonder what the people 1000 years from now will think of our morality.
We are human beings and we are able to over come some of our animal ways because we are able to think and reason. No I do not think that we can get rid of all of the animal in us but we are able to achieve things that other animals are not able to.
If we agree that it is ok to be in competition and rank with one another than we are indirectly being in competition with our own love ones. When we open the door to competition and rank we open the door to many other evils as well. The sky is the limit and the life monopoly begins but the sad thing is that this is real life that you are exposing your love ones to by agreeing that this is acceptable behaviour. Could we prosper more if we took a different approach? Smile
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 12:14 pm
@reasoning logic,
I agree with most, or rather almost all what you have said. But I am still not able to get to the crux of your problem. But anyway, since you have now brought in the topic of slavery, i think i know where you are coming from, but not sure where you want to go.

So, i would start from a general under standing.
Ethics is something that evolves. It is wrong to believe that morality exists a priori. Humans indulged in cannibalism at one point of time, and still exists as exceptions. Similarly, the internal sense of having slaves is still strong. In some countries like Pakisthan we still have some kind of system of bonded labours. Feudalism still exists in some countries.

In capitalist societies, workers work or is paid on the basis of availability of requisite skills. The unskilled worker gets the least pay. The system is so made that the unskilled ever gets the least pay packets but also is the first to be kicked out when the need to tighten the belt arises. The irony of free market economy is that the CEO is the last man to have his salary reduced or cut. This is a modern type of feudalism. So on the question of morality, where does the CEO stand, or where is ethics in the system.

Your emphasis on intellectually challenged people ( which in fact means - stupid people) been somehow made to work is in nutshell the natural history of economical man. Each Emperor makes his subject work for him and his goals, Each parents make their child work for them, Each nation makes their citizens work for them..... you may not have realised it, but i am sure you will find the answer.

Therefore, acts of immorality stil occurs......... its just that we sometimes overlook it or are not able to realise the harm we do. For instance, the unskilled worker, who gets peanuts as salary is first to be removed, while the CEO takes home salary which may equal 100 unskilled workers pay continues in office inspite of making losses; like how we enjoy going to the zoo and have a day with our family amusing ourselves watching the terribly sick wild animals caged as slaves of humanity; like we continue to have horse racing inspite of half the world saying animals should not be tortured, or pet keeping for example.

What may be taken for granted today may turn out to be an immoral act tomorrow. Thats fine, Rome was not built in a day, so also is civilisation. It is a dynamic thing. Who knows tomorrow keeping servants make be deemed as immoral. Thats social evolution.

On prosperity, my feeling is that the era of cut-throat competition is over, companies are selling themslves to other competitors, or they are buying out others, some are getting into alliances, therefore it can said that co-operation is back just like it used to be in the barter system.

As far as making use of others is concerned, that may continue, because nature has made us that way. I am not sure why.
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 07:22 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;137939 wrote:
I agree with most, or rather almost all what you have said. But I am still not able to get to the crux of your problem. But anyway, since you have now brought in the topic of slavery, i think i know where you are coming from, but not sure where you want to go.

So, i would start from a general under standing.
Ethics is something that evolves. It is wrong to believe that morality exists a priori. Humans indulged in cannibalism at one point of time, and still exists as exceptions. Similarly, the internal sense of having slaves is still strong. In some countries like Pakisthan we still have some kind of system of bonded labours. Feudalism still exists in some countries.

In capitalist societies, workers work or is paid on the basis of availability of requisite skills. The unskilled worker gets the least pay. The system is so made that the unskilled ever gets the least pay packets but also is the first to be kicked out when the need to tighten the belt arises. The irony of free market economy is that the CEO is the last man to have his salary reduced or cut. This is a modern type of feudalism. So on the question of morality, where does the CEO stand, or where is ethics in the system.

Your emphasis on intellectually challenged people ( which in fact means - stupid people) been somehow made to work is in nutshell the natural history of economical man. Each Emperor makes his subject work for him and his goals, Each parents make their child work for them, Each nation makes their citizens work for them..... you may not have realised it, but i am sure you will find the answer.

Therefore, acts of immorality stil occurs......... its just that we sometimes overlook it or are not able to realise the harm we do. For instance, the unskilled worker, who gets peanuts as salary is first to be removed, while the CEO takes home salary which may equal 100 unskilled workers pay continues in office inspite of making losses; like how we enjoy going to the zoo and have a day with our family amusing ourselves watching the terribly sick wild animals caged as slaves of humanity; like we continue to have horse racing inspite of half the world saying animals should not be tortured, or pet keeping for example.

What may be taken for granted today may turn out to be an immoral act tomorrow. Thats fine, Rome was not built in a day, so also is civilisation. It is a dynamic thing. Who knows tomorrow keeping servants make be deemed as immoral. Thats social evolution.

On prosperity, my feeling is that the era of cut-throat competition is over, companies are selling themslves to other competitors, or they are buying out others, some are getting into alliances, therefore it can said that co-operation is back just like it used to be in the barter system.

As far as making use of others is concerned, that may continue, because nature has made us that way. I am not sure why.


I would like to comment on much of what you have said but I do not have enough time at the moment, so I will only comment on a couple of things.
You seem to be reading out of the same book as I have been reading. I may be behind you by a few chapters but I believe that you did not understand What the author was saying in some of the sentences. LOL just jokeing as you may be right and I may be wrong. Who knows? You do seem to see some of the same things that I think I may be seeing.
I would like to speak on intellectually challenged people! You seem to be a little harsh on your definition. I would say that they may not be as interested as you may be in trying to find out facts but I would not call them stupid, but instead different than you. These will be many of your descendants. You also touch on cannablism, I have also read that on every continent there has been cannablism, so yes I would agree with your statement. I would like to respond more to what you have said but I am limited to time. You do seem to be well educated with what you speak of. I will comment soon.
Reasoning Self Logic
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 11:36 am
@reasoning logic,
No sir, i am not so well educated as you may think, but yes i may be well read. Thats an exception i may give myself.

On calling some people stupid, i may have wronged. When you first added the phrase, i thought it was really nice of you to describe some people as you choosed to. But i just thought that, may be i was not in a good mood, that you were being too politically correct. For the simple reason that we are not discussing or debatiing in an physical environment face to face. Since we are in the nether world or the cyber world, i gave myself the liberty of indulging in simple words..... LOL

ps: And my apologise to those readers who thought i was indiscrete on that count!
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 05:55 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;138320 wrote:
No sir, i am not so well educated as you may think, but yes i may be well read. Thats an exception i may give myself.

On calling some people stupid, i may have wronged. When you first added the phrase, i thought it was really nice of you to describe some people as you choosed to. But i just thought that, may be i was not in a good mood, that you were being too politically correct. For the simple reason that we are not discussing or debatiing in an physical environment face to face. Since we are in the nether world or the cyber world, i gave myself the liberty of indulging in simple words..... LOL

ps: And my apologise to those readers who thought i was indiscrete on that count!


Yes I do agree, Employ your time in improving yourself by other men's and women's writings, so that you shall gain easily what others have labored hard for. I realy do not have any thing to comment on because I do seem to agree with most all of what you have said. I do have more questions that I will ask this week end. If you or anyone else is up to it, lol:)
[No sir, i am not so well educated as you may think, but yes i may be well read. Thats an exception i may give myself.]
 
deepthot
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 03:09 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;135787 wrote:
... I have just finished reading deepthots link (is Katz = deepthot ?) and treatise on A Unified Theory Of Ethics. At the outset it is a good compilation of thoughts on Ethics, it has briefly dealt with different definitions, applications and aspects of Ethics. It has chosen a style of presenting a transcript of a group discussion taken place somewhere rather than a narrative style that we often read and see.

The short book does touch upon many different notions related to Ethics. The examples on moral judgements were also very interesting to read.

My first thoughts after reading it is that of a mixed feelings. Like its an admirable effort to acheive some kind of a scientific basis to Ethics is controversial, since i think the social scientists are somehow desperate to bring social science into the realm of scientific philosophy and gain recognition and acceptance as a true empirical science. However, we know that it is very difficult to prove exactly why a man behaves as he behaves. To objectify the reasons for mans action has been a continous process for jurists, judges, social scientists, psychologists, anthropologists etc.......... and i personally think they fail more often to pin point the exact reason for misbehaviour.

Well, i think i may have transgressed the topic, or perhaps condescending but i feel, the meaning of Ethics - is always in a flux. What is an ideal behaviour?..... I think Ethics tries to psychologically bind human mind to a path of action between natural instincts and an ideal state of living. Morals are contextual values created to meet an temporal end or goal.

The book has indeed done well to bring out the realtionships between values, morals and recommended behaviour, and how it helps the individual and society. The Means-Ends chapter was quite enlightening, and explained how one means determines an end, and each enad than becomes a mean to acheive another end. This cyclic movement of morals, in the psycho -social context is the core of the problem of Ethics. ...


Greetings, Jackofalltrades

Well. You have gone above and beyond 'the call of duty' in presenting us with this thorough review of the e-book - which has the abbreviated title: A.U.T.O.E. Laughing

Yes, I am Dr. Katz. You guessed it.

Earlier I had written that my theory of Ethics said nothing about environmental activism. I must amend that: readers will note that in Chapter 10 of ETHICS: A College Course, p.54-55, ff. http://tinyurl.com/2mj5b3 I do recommend that we pay attention to doing something positive about the environment. It had temporarily escaped me that I had stressed that point. The chapter is titled: "What's In Our Self-Interest?"

I am sorry you have "mixed feelings" after perusing my essay. You do realize, don't you, that my approach is not oriented around explaining behavior so much as it strives to emphasize the building of good character. It is closer to modern Virtue Ethics than to other traditional schools. It is aporetic, to use a Greek term. Hence all the criticism of the social sciences - so-called - is sort of a 'red herring.' {I do believe that once a formal axiology is the basis for those disciplines you mentioned, such as anthropology, or economics, or psychology, then they will be seen as on a more scientific plane. For they are all value fields. This is a program for the future. And even Axiology itself needs to become more and more formalized and acceptable to logicians as a reputable Relevance Logic.

When you say that a jurist fails to "pin point the exact reason for misbehaviour" I hope you did not get the impression that that is what I was trying to do in my Unified Theory booklet. I leave that to the psychaiatrist and the psychotherapists - unless you yourself can tell me what those "exact reasons" are. Do you want to suggest an answer as to the "exact reason" for misbehavior?

What I do say in Endnote 5 is that Chaos Theory may have some light to shed on the topic. I have admitted we have 'multiple selves.' I did say that one of the models derived from this subset of Complexity Theory can show that we are not so much self-contradictory as we are subject to the "pull' of attractors, which have the effect of distracting us into temptations to deviate from the moral path.

I do not hold - as you seem to - that human beings have "natural instincts." I claim that babies are very, very educable, and that kids can be enculturated and socialized into any variety of behaviors ...beyond what most of us can even imagine. We are (while we're still young) extremely flexible creatures.

You are right that my program is to bring the actual more into line with the ideal. To be moral we are to better approximate our true self, by which is meant: the highest ideal to which a human could aspire. I do believe that the theme that could unify all of ethics is to add value. One way of doing this is to live a meaningful life ....such as, for example, to be an environmental activist. Or to be a good parent. Or to write some books that will have an impact long after one is dead and gone.

And I am glad you liked the chapter on Means and Ends, and found it to be, in your words, "enlightening." You are very kind.

And discerning !! :bigsmile:

Would you recommend the Theory (outlined in the link below) to other members of the Philosophy Foruum, or to other interested parties? Could you do that in good conscience?
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 07:54 pm
@deepthot,
I would like to share some different points of views! Intellectual people and what they offer society. There is a infinite supply of value that they bring so I will only name a few as you all already know most all of them yourselves. I am only insuring the readers that I also think I know.

Without intellectual people we would not have the abundant accsess to water and food as we do, We would not have the technology as we do. No cars, boats, planes, roads, bridges, phones and the list goes on and on and never stops.

Now I would like to speak hypothetically of how the world would be without the laborer! I would like the reader to try and imagine a intellectual world without the laborer. If I were to ask the reader to pick 1000 of the most itellectual people in the world and ask each one of them to perform a task of building something.
Lets start with something common like say a car, How about a 2010 toyota camry. Now let us make it easier for them by giving them any and all books [info] that they may not know, and lets bring them more than what they may need in raw materials required to build a toyota camry and lay it at their feet. Would they be able to build one toyota camry in their life time? Now keep in mind that this is only one person per car and they have nothing to work with other than raw materials.

Now lets try a different approach and allow them all to try and build one together. What kind of problems would they run into? Being that they are all intellectual do you think that some of them may want more pay as they may be the laborer and the other may be the boss? Do you think that some will like to labor as others tell them what to do for the same pay?:detective:
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 11:39 am
@reasoning logic,
Hi deepthot (i will stick with your forum id). Thanks

Glad to hear from you again.

Quote:
Do you want to suggest an answer as to the "exact reason" for misbehavior?


No sir, i do not want to risk take up that task. The implication of my points was to bring out the 'impossibility of knowing the exact causes of 'misbeviour'? I stress on the fact that we just guess by the help of certain so-called evidences presented as 'facts' and deduce the causes.

If we can deduce the Continental Shift Theory on the basis of some alleged facts or purported evidences, we can still claim a level of satisfaction in our pursuance of truth. We make teh theory good and present it as if it is a fact or reality until a repudiating theory is put forth. The CST may well explain the shift (if at all) in a scientific manner, but what is the guarantee of its truthfulness.

Note: it is not my case that it is a bad theory. I am taking it as an example. Now, if physical phenomenon cannot be proven with a 100 per cent guarantee, than you will appreciate how difficult it is to prove why a mentally stable man or men behaves in a fashion and for this particular reason or that. The 'exactness' is not possible.

Yes, in general we can deduce (deduction takes place from the general to the particular) how a man might have behaved and for what general reasons or in criminal lexicon, for what motives.

You may know, in a crime case, evidences are collected, it is then linked to the events as witnessed or deduced. Important point to note is that it is somehow 'linked' as they try and establish the relationship of evidences and events. This is an intellectual exercise. At the end of the day, it is playing a 3 card game of speculation.
Human behaviour cannot be predicted. The Emperors of Ethics have tried to rule the people and their mind, having devised various means but has admittedly acheived only some limping success.

This is not to say that, that Ethics has no role to play. It has a very important role to play. But turning a blind eye to 'natural instincts' in MHO is not the way forward.

-----------
ps: of course i will recommend it, its a good simple book to understand Ethics and Axiology.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 02:47 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;139356 wrote:
Hi deepthot ... The implication of my points was to bring out the 'impossibility of knowing the exact causes of 'misbeviour'? ...
Human behaviour cannot be predicted. The Emperors of Ethics have tried to rule the people and their mind, having devised various means but has admittedly acheived only some limping success. ...


I fail to see how all this is relevant to the Unified Theory of Ethics since the theory does not claim that we can know "the exact cause(s) of misbehavior" nor does it endeavor to predict human behavior, nor does is want to rule anything.

That theory was what was under review, and you did show in other parts of the comments that you get the point. I give you lots of credit for that. And I am pleased that you wants to recommend it to the attention of others.

Please don't take offense, Jack, at my confusion here. I just feel all this about pinpointing an "exact cause" of behaviour" may be a "straw man" fallacy, when the concept "behavior" is the domain of Psychology - a vast field of study - which bills itself as The Science of Behavior. It has varied approaches that can be analyzed by the three dimensions of value ...as follows:

Systemic: the work of Stevenson; of Hull; of B. F. Skinner on schedules of reinforcement; xetc.

Extrinsic: the research studies and explanations of the functional components, such as memory, cognition, belief, brain diseases;aptitude studies; perception studies; etc.

Intrinsic: the organic psychotherapies, gestalt therapy, logotherapy, etc.

It is true that the Theory of Ethics offered in the link below, in my signature, does remind us that much of what we do is caused by self-talk, which may consist of illogical things we tell ourselves that then results in needless emotional pain. This is elaborated in REBT, a school of thought founded by the late Albert Ellis (who was a dear friend of mine). It is a therapy based upon concepts from Epictetus, the Stoic. The initials stand for: Rational-Emotive-Behavioral-Therapy. It is a cognitive approach to healing through counseling, and self-counseling. His classic book, Rational Thinking in an Irrational World was his biggest best-seller. Albert Ellis (psychologist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would be the last one in the world to claim that there is only one cause of human behavior. I hope no one attributes that to me. ....not saying you did..

Actually it was the ETHICS: A College Course book which stressed the cognitive influences on our character more than the latest essay. I emphasize a positive approach to being and becoming ethical. In contrast, psychiatrists issue a Manual annually which lists every currently-known perversion, perversity, deviance, and mental abnormality. I leave the tabulation and analysis of immorality to them. For now. Eventually maybe Ethics shall overlap with their filed of interest.

 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 04:11 am
@reasoning logic,
Hi Deepthot

I thank you for your patience.

It was not my case to argue on behalf of psychology to plead for knowing the root causes of human behaviour before putting or compiling Ethics in formal Language. Moreover, i was neither pointing out any flaw in the Unified Theory you put forth. I am not upto that mark of critically reviewing books of the science's, natural or social.

Let me clarify the confusion. I was only responding to a question you asked on whether I can suggest an answer on the 'exact cause' of human behaviour or misbehaviour. Now,...if you read my post the one preceding the last one, i was in general making an observation on social sciences which is trying hard to predict human behaviour in particular or on how societies react to events and happennings, in general. I was only trying to emphasize the difficulty in arriving at a model, or template which can help predict for whatever benefit it might be for. I think in my explanation i went 'beyond my call of duty or brief'. It a bad habit i am trying to shed.

It was a genral observation, nothing caustic about it neither it was said with an intention to be factored in the Unified Theory. Your attempt to formalise Ethics for Academic understandings is praise worthy, and i should congratulate you in the efforts you have taken to help others in the subject of Ethics. It is a field where more and more young people are interested in.

So my apologise for causing any consternation on that count, and my kudos to you and your friends.
rgds
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 02:31:41