Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

What is ethics?

Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 1:46:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
We have sensitiveness, which is different for each person.

Various sensitivity could be provided by our maturity. From childhood to adulthood, we are developing our senses (sense of humor, sense of beauty, sense of respect, a sense of secure and many more).

By understanding and experiencing, a person can learn about sensitiveness and appropriate implementation of sensitiveness at the level of tolerance to something (degree of rejection and degree of acceptance), so that the determination of how far a sensitivity should be implemented as our responses is determined on the value of one"s tolerance.

Determining how far we will do ethical is the same as thinking about how far we have to give a certain sensitivity to be implemented through a certain attitude that is consistent with the allowable tolerance.

Every community has a different understanding and in experiencing something, therefore each community can have difference sensitivities and difference tolerances and it will lead to difference in applying ethics.

Ethics is how to fulfilling obligations and accept the rights, based on sensitivity and in line with the allowable tolerance.
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 12:21:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 10:03:20 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
Plainly stated, ethics is a determination of how we should live our lives, and how we should treat each other.

Should or ought? There is a distinction.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 12:26:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 12:21:51 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/13/2012 10:03:20 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
Plainly stated, ethics is a determination of how we should live our lives, and how we should treat each other.

Should or ought? There is a distinction.

Really? Praytell what it is.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 12:52:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 12:26:58 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/13/2012 12:21:51 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/13/2012 10:03:20 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
Plainly stated, ethics is a determination of how we should live our lives, and how we should treat each other.

Should or ought? There is a distinction.

Really? Praytell what it is.

In my opinion there is. Consider the two statements, 1. "You shouldn't steal from that vender", 2. "You ought not to steal from that vender." "Ought" is moral while "should" is not so much. Any moral nihilist might say you should do x but none of them would say you ought to do x. Ought I think is a referral to obligation whereas "should" goes along the lines of advice and rational practicality. No one's going to argue against the resolution "we should put up a border fence" based on grounds that objective morality does not exist. That's because it's not a moral statement. The first statement could have been a moral statement but it isn't necessarily one, whereas the second statement is.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 2:52:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 12:52:51 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/13/2012 12:26:58 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/13/2012 12:21:51 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/13/2012 10:03:20 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
Plainly stated, ethics is a determination of how we should live our lives, and how we should treat each other.

Should or ought? There is a distinction.

Really? Praytell what it is.

In my opinion there is. Consider the two statements, 1. "You shouldn't steal from that vender", 2. "You ought not to steal from that vender." "Ought" is moral while "should" is not so much. Any moral nihilist might say you should do x but none of them would say you ought to do x. Ought I think is a referral to obligation whereas "should" goes along the lines of advice and rational practicality. No one's going to argue against the resolution "we should put up a border fence" based on grounds that objective morality does not exist. That's because it's not a moral statement. The first statement could have been a moral statement but it isn't necessarily one, whereas the second statement is.

In moral philosophy distinction you're pointing out isn't really acknowledged. Plenty of philosophers speak of non-moral oughts including Kant ("prudential ought") and Phillipa Foot as well. Haven't you ever heard someone say something like "you ought to close to close the door because it's cold?"
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 2:54:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Similarly, you could use "should" in either a moral or non-moral sense. It depends on the context and the intention of the speaker.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 3:50:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 2:52:51 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 11/13/2012 12:52:51 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/13/2012 12:26:58 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/13/2012 12:21:51 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/13/2012 10:03:20 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
Plainly stated, ethics is a determination of how we should live our lives, and how we should treat each other.

Should or ought? There is a distinction.

Really? Praytell what it is.

In my opinion there is. Consider the two statements, 1. "You shouldn't steal from that vender", 2. "You ought not to steal from that vender." "Ought" is moral while "should" is not so much. Any moral nihilist might say you should do x but none of them would say you ought to do x. Ought I think is a referral to obligation whereas "should" goes along the lines of advice and rational practicality. No one's going to argue against the resolution "we should put up a border fence" based on grounds that objective morality does not exist. That's because it's not a moral statement. The first statement could have been a moral statement but it isn't necessarily one, whereas the second statement is.

In moral philosophy distinction you're pointing out isn't really acknowledged. Plenty of philosophers speak of non-moral oughts including Kant ("prudential ought") and Phillipa Foot as well. Haven't you ever heard someone say something like "you ought to close to close the door because it's cold?"

Meh I suppose you're mostly right. But I do think there's a difference between the two and I do think "should" is more often used in the non-moral sense than "ought".
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 3:51:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 2:54:25 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Similarly, you could use "should" in either a moral or non-moral sense. It depends on the context and the intention of the speaker.

Yes I conceded that.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 4:58:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ethics are the standards we make based on moral philosophy. The real question is: "what is morality?"

Human brains developed to allow intelligence, and at the same time they developed the ability to feel compassion and empathy. In some people these abilities are nurtured and in others, unfortunately, they are not. I remember the first time that part of my brain activated... I was 5 years old and my father bought me a sandwich at Subway (this was in 1986 and before they went ultra-mega franchise) for school. I said "screw it" at lunch and threw it away because eating meals was a chore I didn't feel like undertaking at that time, and the teacher saw me and told my father. When he found out he told me how much he had spent on the sandwich and really took me to task on how wasteful and inconsiderate I had been.

To this day I still feel a solid sense of guilt about throwing away that sandwich, 26 years later. A new pathway had been cut in my brain, that was reserved for sympathy/compassion/empathy. Morality.

How morality works, is that you have natural propensities for creature comforts in the form of indulgences. As far as I can tell, there are seven main indulgences that humans are capable of (see the seven "deadly sins") and survival is quite impossible unless they are contained. Raw indulgence is never, ever, ever positive in and of itself. I saw "raw" to differentiate logical indulgence. If you could separate your indulgent nature from your rational one, you could logically decide that indulgence is acceptable and plan on giving yourself that pleasure without being motivated unduly. If this point is hard to understand, then just imagine you were scheduling someone else's life. How often do they smoke or drink? How often do they indulge in sweets or exercise? How many hours do they study a day?

These answers would be your logical answers. Your rational thinking. But we have trouble thinking rationally for ourselves. Why else would one become obese or alcoholic? These desires block our rational thinking, and cause immorality. We then make social norms to deal with these, and unfortunately our society includes "laws" in that category and I would argue that law is a social norm to deal with immorality that is itself based in immorality. Laws function to destroy natural freedoms and prop up rigid guidelines that render natural social norms ineffective at dealing with the problem the way it should be.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.