While the forms of ethical discourse might be called "objective" in some sense, they also seem to cause further questions....

Or again, if one acknowledges the Principle of Honesty, are there not exceptions, and would not these exceptions undermine its status as a Principle? If for example, a vigilante gang of citizens demands of me to know where someone is hiding, am I to collaborate in his lynching by being honest about where he is hiding?

Most ethical situations and choices in real life seem less than clear-cut, and can be very ambiguous. All the principles are, one could also argue, perfectly fine, but there is (as my example indicates) no Principle to judge which Principle is more important than another Principle when they seem to contradict one another.

That, lastly, these Principles are often used in ethical discourse does not seem sufficient to warrant their being "objective," rather perhaps just the opposite. And certainly the application of them to specific events and is subjective and a matter of choice.

.... if one acknowledges the extent to which actions contribute to the social benefit of society, there still remains the question about what actions REALLY benefit society and what criteria are to be used to judge whether a particular action actually benefits society.

Or again, if one acknowledges the Principle of Honesty, are there not exceptions, and would not these exceptions undermine its status as a Principle? If for example, a vigilante gang of citizens demands of me to know where someone is hiding, am I to collaborate in his lynching by being honest about where he is hiding?

Most ethical situations and choices in real life seem less than clear-cut, and can be very ambiguous. All the principles are, one could also argue, perfectly fine, but there is (as my example indicates) no Principle to judge which Principle is more important than another Principle when they seem to contradict one another.

That, lastly, these Principles are often used in ethical discourse does not seem sufficient to warrant their being "objective," rather perhaps just the opposite. And certainly the application of them to specific events and is subjective and a matter of choice.

I think this idea has a lot of potential. You refer in the online book to a group of estimable people - the Dalai Lama and others. This suggests a possible source of materials to work with. There are many sources of ethical theory in the various traditions, for example the Nichomachean Ethics of Aristotle, the Confucian Ethics, Buddhist Ethics, and so on. Mullah Nasruddin is another one. There are even aesops fables and the Jataka tales (stories of Buddha's former lives).

As you point out, many of these embody similar principles common to many cultures and traditions. Also they contain many excellent anecdotes and 'teaching stories' which can be used to illustrate various principles of ethics in action. (And they are all generally in the public domain, too:-)

The other useful aspect of these materials, is that it might help your audience to relate the theory to their lives by relating it to their cultural milieu. This way you could build up a lot of very valuable training information that had a lot of interesting cultural flavour and perspectives while still relating it to the objective principles that you are developing.

just a thought!

What I am about to say is an objective truth. Yet it pertains to ethics. I don't see any objective truth about your writing, some demagogues may try to solidify their works by stating such, and you fully buy it.

To be more blunt, you have no idea what ethics is. You think it as some kind of a school rule book or at the most a traffic guidebook. Wonder how simple, people can be?

Hex missed the point altogether because he (to take the kind interpretation) failed to read - or skimmed very hurriedly not letting it sink in - the 2nd and 3rd sentences in the original post; and did not read the first and second paragraphs in post #3. There I claimed 'objectivity' for a fact, namely that those principles are often referred to, perhaps implicityly if not by the explicit words, in ethical discourse. I explained that carefully in response to Jigweed's critique of the o.p.

I wish I could speak Danish as well as he speaks English so it is commendable that Hex reads English as well as he does. I admire you for that, Hex.. However, I never claimed any truth-value for those principles listed, so objections to those were just a commission of The Straw Man Fallacy of logic.

But the term, "ethics" has (at least) two meanings. 1. The study of moral principles, and 2. those moral principles themselves. Hex is using the term in the second sense, and you are using the term in the first sense. But how can Hex not "have any idea of what ethics is" just because he uses it in a sense different from yours? He is right. In one sense, ethics is a list of principles of morality.

Disregarding all your puerile attacks, your arguing does not make sense to me. It seems you just argue for the sake of arguing, and in the process forgets to put anything meaningful in your words.

Considering all your attacks, and specially this "Wonder how simple, people can be?", it correlates well with the lack of meaningful arguments you display. Infact even the person whom you try to defend, does not agree with you.

This is a philosophy forum, not a bicker forum.

Ethics is the science of morals or moral principles. Applied Ethics is the practical use of those principles. I used the term in this sense. Like all social principles, they are theoretical, (i know deepthot disagrees with me), and therefore, my contention is that all ethical values (so created) cannot be applied by all and sundry.

However, Hexhammer's points, although substantiates my contention, is also but a narrow way of looking at ethical principles. He goes about it as if it is rules written on rock. But no, no social theories or principles are rock solid in its foundation (although deepthot attempts hard to convince us on this). It is ironical, but for me both the view points are not acceptable.

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 04:31 PM ----------

Let me give you some examples of bickering.
B1) The fact that the person said i am 'off track' does not mean he disagree, whereas he points out immediately that you 'missed the point althogether', and i was just pointed out to you, how you missed such a large point.

B2) Read the 'Fallacy of the Straw Man'. and to add, Your pointing a finger at me has made three fingers point at yourself.

Dont you think, bickering sometimes help in thinking logically. Anyway, thats a diffrent matter.

Meaningful arguments was what was expected here while discussing Deepthots principles (nothing pioneering about those, but should thank him for his wisdom and articulations)....... which i found very reasonable and written in a simplistic form for simple people to understand. But of all the arguments presented, i found yours the most meaningless counter argument.

For one example: While a principle of justice was laid out, you talk about how people are able to talk it out in your country and how in US people go to courts on disputes on underwears. In which case you are just trying to rake up an issue where there is none. Absurd, i said.

As long as narrow and absurd thinking goes, i shall be more than willing to reason (you may call it bickering), and hopefully reason will succed at the end of the day.

I don't think that Hexhammer regards ethical principles as social principles. I am not clear what social principles are, but if you mean by the term, "social principles" that ethical principles are principles which a society actually lives by and follows, I don't think he believes that ethical principles are social principles. Rather, he thinks that ethical principles are principles that a society ought to follow (not that they do follow). And that is much different.

When you actually want to discuss things in a serious manner, instead of making preposterous defenses, then we can talk.

I am damn serious. In fact i was never thsi serious to be frank, i thought when you asked deepthot to 'forget the ethic business', and find other pass time's......... i thought it was not only preposterous but simply ridiculous. Your bluntness should put you to shame.

And as a matter of fact, and principles of debate, you better start refuting the points against my observations.

The above statement you made appears to be a retreat from a debate rather than a serious defense.

I have absolutely no intention stooping down on a puerile levl of argumentation, slinging mud and other primitive and agressive stupidities.

"you better start refuting" Your usual overly agressive behaviour, I just can't allow myself to dignify such behaviour.

We can debate when you are ready for a mature and sound debate.