Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ethics = persuasive device

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 6:57:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ethics can't be logically justified because logic describes what is and ethics refer to an ideal state that's dependent on subjective criteria.

Even though I think this is true, in real life and sometimes on DDO I will reference morality anyway. I will still argue that killing or stealing or cheating etc. are wrong, or that people should do X and not do Y. This is because morality is in fact a persuasive device designed to regulate human behavior. Whether or not this morality is logically binding and fundamentally cogent in argumentation is irrelevant. People must only hold the perception that morality is unassailable (and this is aided by their emotional rather than rational faculties).

So ethics do serve a purpose, even though they oppose reason. So it is not quite hypocritical to argue that morality is unjustifiable and yet willfully invoke it later. If logic is constructed around human survival through understanding of the external world, morality is constructed around human survival through internal deterrents to crimes against each other that harm survival. This is an unfortunate but exigent coexistence.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 7:03:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 6:57:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
Ethics can't be logically justified because logic describes what is and ethics refer to an ideal state that's dependent on subjective criteria.

You might consider giving that sentence another try.
Tsar of DDO
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 12:28:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 6:57:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
Ethics can't be logically justified because logic describes what is and ethics refer to an ideal state that's dependent on subjective criteria.

It pains me to see someone so stuck in an eighteenth century way of thinking about ethical philosophy.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 5:58:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 12:28:51 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/27/2013 6:57:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
Ethics can't be logically justified because logic describes what is and ethics refer to an ideal state that's dependent on subjective criteria.

It pains me to see someone so stuck in an eighteenth century way of thinking about ethical philosophy.

As unfamiliar as I am with philosophy, as a study, I'm sure that the age of ideas does not correspond with their accuracy. It seems like some certain opinions are popular, then dropped, and then picked up at a later time - and in some cases, claims that certain logical problems had been dealt with in X century turn out to be controversial, with some disagreeing that they were ever adequately solved in the first place. So I'd be more responsive to a logical rebuttal than one vaguely predicated on ad populum.

But to be fair, you have attempted many rebuttals, usually involving discourse ethics. But Cody_Franklin has very clearly outlined that discourse ethics doesn't include normative claims. Without any such constrain on human behavior, I don't see how it's relevant. Showing what's contradictory or "logically impossible" for a human to do doesn't actually suggest that it's immoral, but that it's simply illogical.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 9:49:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 5:58:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/29/2013 12:28:51 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/27/2013 6:57:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
Ethics can't be logically justified because logic describes what is and ethics refer to an ideal state that's dependent on subjective criteria.

It pains me to see someone so stuck in an eighteenth century way of thinking about ethical philosophy.

As unfamiliar as I am with philosophy, as a study, I'm sure that the age of ideas does not correspond with their accuracy. It seems like some certain opinions are popular, then dropped, and then picked up at a later time - and in some cases, claims that certain logical problems had been dealt with in X century turn out to be controversial, with some disagreeing that they were ever adequately solved in the first place. So I'd be more responsive to a logical rebuttal than one vaguely predicated on ad populum.

But to be fair, you have attempted many rebuttals, usually involving discourse ethics. But Cody_Franklin has very clearly outlined that discourse ethics doesn't include normative claims. Without any such constrain on human behavior, I don't see how it's relevant. Showing what's contradictory or "logically impossible" for a human to do doesn't actually suggest that it's immoral, but that it's simply illogical.

My whole point has been that yer conception of what 'counts' as ethics is outdated.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 10:44:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 9:49:48 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/29/2013 5:58:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/29/2013 12:28:51 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/27/2013 6:57:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
Ethics can't be logically justified because logic describes what is and ethics refer to an ideal state that's dependent on subjective criteria.

It pains me to see someone so stuck in an eighteenth century way of thinking about ethical philosophy.

As unfamiliar as I am with philosophy, as a study, I'm sure that the age of ideas does not correspond with their accuracy. It seems like some certain opinions are popular, then dropped, and then picked up at a later time - and in some cases, claims that certain logical problems had been dealt with in X century turn out to be controversial, with some disagreeing that they were ever adequately solved in the first place. So I'd be more responsive to a logical rebuttal than one vaguely predicated on ad populum.

But to be fair, you have attempted many rebuttals, usually involving discourse ethics. But Cody_Franklin has very clearly outlined that discourse ethics doesn't include normative claims. Without any such constrain on human behavior, I don't see how it's relevant. Showing what's contradictory or "logically impossible" for a human to do doesn't actually suggest that it's immoral, but that it's simply illogical.

My whole point has been that yer conception of what 'counts' as ethics is outdated.

Contemporary ethicists would probably disagree, since discourse ethics is a minority of one in a sea of normativity.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 11:14:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 10:44:53 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2013 9:49:48 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/29/2013 5:58:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/29/2013 12:28:51 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/27/2013 6:57:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
Ethics can't be logically justified because logic describes what is and ethics refer to an ideal state that's dependent on subjective criteria.

It pains me to see someone so stuck in an eighteenth century way of thinking about ethical philosophy.

As unfamiliar as I am with philosophy, as a study, I'm sure that the age of ideas does not correspond with their accuracy. It seems like some certain opinions are popular, then dropped, and then picked up at a later time - and in some cases, claims that certain logical problems had been dealt with in X century turn out to be controversial, with some disagreeing that they were ever adequately solved in the first place. So I'd be more responsive to a logical rebuttal than one vaguely predicated on ad populum.

But to be fair, you have attempted many rebuttals, usually involving discourse ethics. But Cody_Franklin has very clearly outlined that discourse ethics doesn't include normative claims. Without any such constrain on human behavior, I don't see how it's relevant. Showing what's contradictory or "logically impossible" for a human to do doesn't actually suggest that it's immoral, but that it's simply illogical.

My whole point has been that yer conception of what 'counts' as ethics is outdated.

Contemporary ethicists would probably disagree, since discourse ethics is a minority of one in a sea of normativity.

Well yeah. I seem to remember you saying something about the possibility of non-normative ethics once a while ago. Would you say discourse ethics (in its approach) in any way fits the bill?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 11:43:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 11:14:05 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/29/2013 10:44:53 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2013 9:49:48 AM, Noumena wrote:
My whole point has been that yer conception of what 'counts' as ethics is outdated.

Contemporary ethicists would probably disagree, since discourse ethics is a minority of one in a sea of normativity.

Well yeah. I seem to remember you saying something about the possibility of non-normative ethics once a while ago. Would you say discourse ethics (in its approach) in any way fits the bill?

Indeed, I wish normative ethics were consigned to historical memory. I think discourse ethics is non-normative, but not in a way incompatible with normative ethics. Argumentation, according to Hoppe, only sets the constraint of self-ownership, which precludes the coextensive use of force and reasoning; there are theories, however, which make arguments about the ways in which we ought to exercise our rights. It was G.K. Chesterton who remarked that having a right to do something does not make us right in doing it, and there is much conversation in contemporary ethics about the constraints, in the realm of our right to act--insofar as we have the right to behave immorally--on how we really ought to act. In this sense, discourse ethics is non-normative, but it is not antinomian insofar as it does not offer the possibility of a life released from normativity.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 2:56:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 9:49:48 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/29/2013 5:58:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/29/2013 12:28:51 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/27/2013 6:57:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
Ethics can't be logically justified because logic describes what is and ethics refer to an ideal state that's dependent on subjective criteria.

It pains me to see someone so stuck in an eighteenth century way of thinking about ethical philosophy.

As unfamiliar as I am with philosophy, as a study, I'm sure that the age of ideas does not correspond with their accuracy. It seems like some certain opinions are popular, then dropped, and then picked up at a later time - and in some cases, claims that certain logical problems had been dealt with in X century turn out to be controversial, with some disagreeing that they were ever adequately solved in the first place. So I'd be more responsive to a logical rebuttal than one vaguely predicated on ad populum.

But to be fair, you have attempted many rebuttals, usually involving discourse ethics. But Cody_Franklin has very clearly outlined that discourse ethics doesn't include normative claims. Without any such constrain on human behavior, I don't see how it's relevant. Showing what's contradictory or "logically impossible" for a human to do doesn't actually suggest that it's immoral, but that it's simply illogical.

My whole point has been that yer conception of what 'counts' as ethics is outdated.

I consider ethics anything that regulates the will of human behavior - anything that creates an outline for what man should do with his "freewill". This of course always involves normative claims. And this I know for a fact is the common layman conception of morality. If you have different ideas that aren't of this nature, then I really wish they would be classified under a different name to avoid confusion. Because if you're forwarding something that does not purport an "ought," then we're not talking about the same thing.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 3:02:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Tbh, discourse ethics still leads to 'ought' statements. I don't think any particular moral methodology is entirely sufficient for use though, in part because I think there may well be different types of moral problem, as well as of moral statement.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 6:08:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How is me calling it by a different name warranted when my specific point is that the concept is in need of revision in the first place?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 6:40:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 6:08:21 PM, Noumena wrote:
How is me calling it by a different name warranted when my specific point is that the concept is in need of revision in the first place?

You can't revise a concept - you can't erase ideas out of existence. You introduce a new concept or a variation of the existing one. I'm saying that whatever concept you're trying to explain here is inconsistent with the common conception of what morality is, and so the onus is on the creator of this idea to name it appropriately. If you insist that this must be considered a form of morality....then you must identify what element of the existing conception of ethics makes this concept appropriate under this classification.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 6:55:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 6:40:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/29/2013 6:08:21 PM, Noumena wrote:
How is me calling it by a different name warranted when my specific point is that the concept is in need of revision in the first place?

You can't revise a concept - you can't erase ideas out of existence.

Im not doing that. I'm proposing that ethics not be constricted to normativity.

You introduce a new concept or a variation of the existing one. I'm saying that whatever concept you're trying to explain here is inconsistent with the common conception of what morality is, and so the onus is on the creator of this idea to name it appropriately.

I'm not naming a concept. I'm proposing a revision in the scope of an already existent one (ethics).

If you insist that this must be considered a form of morality....then you must identify what element of the existing conception of ethics makes this concept appropriate under this classification.

Discourse ethics is binding through the analysis of presupposition and reason alone (as opposed to some lame prescription on what I'd prefer for you to do). It doesn't tell you what to do, it tells you what you already can and cannot do. In this sense it's non-normative. However it also deals with the conditions upon which defensible axioms (or reasons) having to do with our action may be drawn from. This is the "ethical" sense of it. I see no reason why the former is more important than the latter in calling something an ethic or not.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 7:28:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To me ethics and morality is just the greatest good for the greatest number. It seems simple.
0x5f3759df
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 7:38:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 7:28:06 PM, Bullish wrote:
To me ethics and morality is just the greatest good for the greatest number. It seems simple.

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu...
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 10:27:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 7:28:06 PM, Bullish wrote:
To me ethics and morality is just the greatest good for the greatest number. It seems simple.

Shut up newb.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 10:47:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 12:28:51 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/27/2013 6:57:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
Ethics can't be logically justified because logic describes what is and ethics refer to an ideal state that's dependent on subjective criteria.

It pains me to see someone so stuck in an eighteenth century way of thinking about ethical philosophy.

The Fool: Its sad to see somebody who can never actually give any arguments, not even for ethics. You should give some Example Of the "ways of thinking About Ethical Philosophy." And Please Let us Know What YOU MEAN "by the terms you use".

Especially "The WAYS".
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 10:52:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 10:47:41 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 5/29/2013 12:28:51 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/27/2013 6:57:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
Ethics can't be logically justified because logic describes what is and ethics refer to an ideal state that's dependent on subjective criteria.

It pains me to see someone so stuck in an eighteenth century way of thinking about ethical philosophy.

The Fool: Its sad to see somebody who can never actually give any arguments, not even for ethics. You should give some Example Of the "ways of thinking About Ethical Philosophy." And Please Let us Know What YOU MEAN "by the terms you use".

Especially "The WAYS".

I've talked with Ike extensively about my approach which is why I didn't waste time summarizing it

Even so, I still mentioned briefly my views on non-normative ethics.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 12:43:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 10:52:21 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/29/2013 10:47:41 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 5/29/2013 12:28:51 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/27/2013 6:57:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
Ethics can't be logically justified because logic describes what is and ethics refer to an ideal state that's dependent on subjective criteria.

It pains me to see someone so stuck in an eighteenth century way of thinking about ethical philosophy.

The Fool: Its sad to see somebody who can never actually give any arguments, not even for ethics. You should give some Example Of the "ways of thinking About Ethical Philosophy." And Please Let us Know What YOU MEAN "by the terms you use".

Especially "The WAYS".

I've talked with Ike extensively about my approach which is why I didn't waste time summarizing it

Even so, I still mentioned briefly my views on non-normative ethics.

The Fool: Ha!.

Oh Common, You can just tell us About " THE WAYS Of thinking about ethics' Without changing reference." You could have just wrote it.

<(8J)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 12:44:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool: Fraud!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 12:47:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 12:44:26 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Fraud!

Bingo.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 12:49:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 12:47:22 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/30/2013 12:44:26 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Fraud!

Bingo.

The Fool: And you know it, you despiser of the mind you.

Noumena = Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 12:51:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Btw I explained (briefly) my point three posts above yer initial post:

Discourse ethics is binding through the analysis of presupposition and reason alone (as opposed to some lame prescription on what I'd prefer for you to do). It doesn't tell you what to do, it tells you what you already can and cannot do. In this sense it's non-normative. However it also deals with the conditions upon which defensible axioms (or reasons) having to do with our action may be drawn from. This is the "ethical" sense of it. I see no reason why the former is more important than the latter in calling something an ethic or not.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 12:59:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 6:55:48 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/29/2013 6:40:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/29/2013 6:08:21 PM, Noumena wrote:
How is me calling it by a different name warranted when my specific point is that the concept is in need of revision in the first place?

You can't revise a concept - you can't erase ideas out of existence.

Im not doing that. I'm proposing that ethics not be constricted to normativity.

You introduce a new concept or a variation of the existing one. I'm saying that whatever concept you're trying to explain here is inconsistent with the common conception of what morality is, and so the onus is on the creator of this idea to name it appropriately.

I'm not naming a concept. I'm proposing a revision in the scope of an already existent one (ethics).

If you insist that this must be considered a form of morality....then you must identify what element of the existing conception of ethics makes this concept appropriate under this classification.

Discourse ethics is binding through the analysis of presupposition and reason alone (as opposed to some lame prescription on what I'd prefer for you to do). It doesn't tell you what to do, it tells you what you already can and cannot do. In this sense it's non-normative. However it also deals with the conditions upon which defensible axioms (or reasons) having to do with our action may be drawn from. This is the "ethical" sense of it. I see no reason why the former is more important than the latter in calling something an ethic or not.

The most important sentence in this response isn't making sense to me. Discourse ethics deals with the conditions on which defensible axioms... You lose me at defensible axioms. I was under the impression that axioms were logical foundations which could not be defended or supported in themselves, but accepted as being necessary and self-evident. I don't know what defensible axioms are, and even when I replace the term with "reasons," your sentence still doesn't make sense. ....dealing with conditions upon which reasons can be drawn from.... is essentially what you wrote. This is all very vague and badly worded. So I have no way of respond to it. I still haven't seen where the ethics lie.

What is ethics, if not something that tells human beings what to do with their wills. Morality is the regulation of choice. So if saying what one can and cannot possibly do is ethics then surely "Man cannot fly" should be codified in the Bible.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 7:17:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So lets make this simple. Do you agree that ethics must involve a constrain on human will - where one has the ability to perform a certain action but has reason to prohibit himself from performing it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 7:53:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 7:17:28 AM, 000ike wrote:
So lets make this simple. Do you agree that ethics must involve a constrain on human will - where one has the ability to perform a certain action but has reason to prohibit himself from performing it.

Yer asking the wrong questions. I think one has the ability to use force against someone sure. However, I don't think that one can conceptually argue in favor of it in any coherent way. My point is that certain actions just don't fit into rationally-predicated axioms of action.

The methodology is non-normative-- i.e., I'm not telling you what you should do, I'm telling you what you can possibly do if you stay within a rational framework.

The subject matter is ethical-- is murder defensible?, abortion, coercion, etc.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 7:59:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 12:59:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/29/2013 6:55:48 PM, Noumena wrote:

Discourse ethics is binding through the analysis of presupposition and reason alone (as opposed to some lame prescription on what I'd prefer for you to do). It doesn't tell you what to do, it tells you what you already can and cannot do. In this sense it's non-normative. However it also deals with the conditions upon which defensible axioms (or reasons) having to do with our action may be drawn from. This is the "ethical" sense of it. I see no reason why the former is more important than the latter in calling something an ethic or not.

The most important sentence in this response isn't making sense to me. Discourse ethics deals with the conditions on which defensible axioms... You lose me at defensible axioms. I was under the impression that axioms were logical foundations which could not be defended or supported in themselves, but accepted as being necessary and self-evident. I don't know what defensible axioms are, and even when I replace the term with "reasons," your sentence still doesn't make sense. ....dealing with conditions upon which reasons can be drawn from.... is essentially what you wrote. This is all very vague and badly worded. So I have no way of respond to it. I still haven't seen where the ethics lie.

This just seems like meaningless quibbling. It might not be but I have to figure you know that axiom can be used to denote the reasons upon which practical action are founded.

What is ethics, if not something that tells human beings what to do with their wills. Morality is the regulation of choice.

That's not an argument, it's a re-statement of what you think ethics is. I obviously disagree, hence the argument.

So if saying what one can and cannot possibly do is ethics then surely "Man cannot fly" should be codified in the Bible.

Ugh. Reductios can be funny but only if they coherently apply the principle in question. Saying you can fly isn't an axiom of action, it's a misreading of yer physical structure. You can physically punch someone in the face for no reason. You can't physically fly on yer own. Yer equivocation an axiom dealing with what we can coherently affirm with a statement of what we can physically do.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 8:18:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 7:53:37 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/2/2013 7:17:28 AM, 000ike wrote:
So lets make this simple. Do you agree that ethics must involve a constrain on human will - where one has the ability to perform a certain action but has reason to prohibit himself from performing it.

Yer asking the wrong questions. I think one has the ability to use force against someone sure. However, I don't think that one can conceptually argue in favor of it in any coherent way. My point is that certain actions just don't fit into rationally-predicated axioms of action.

The methodology is non-normative-- i.e., I'm not telling you what you should do, I'm telling you what you can possibly do if you stay within a rational framework.

The subject matter is ethical-- is murder defensible?, abortion, coercion, etc.

I understand that, but what is the significance of an indefensible action? So you've proven that it isn't quite possible to justify certain coercive actions. What now? You're not raising an objection to the action itself, but to the rationality of attempting to verbally support it. Where no such verbal defense is pursue, you have no objection. I'm just confused as to how this is in anyway considered an ethical philosophy.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 8:34:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 8:18:32 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/2/2013 7:53:37 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/2/2013 7:17:28 AM, 000ike wrote:
So lets make this simple. Do you agree that ethics must involve a constrain on human will - where one has the ability to perform a certain action but has reason to prohibit himself from performing it.

Yer asking the wrong questions. I think one has the ability to use force against someone sure. However, I don't think that one can conceptually argue in favor of it in any coherent way. My point is that certain actions just don't fit into rationally-predicated axioms of action.

The methodology is non-normative-- i.e., I'm not telling you what you should do, I'm telling you what you can possibly do if you stay within a rational framework.

The subject matter is ethical-- is murder defensible?, abortion, coercion, etc.

I understand that, but what is the significance of an indefensible action? So you've proven that it isn't quite possible to justify certain coercive actions. What now? You're not raising an objection to the action itself, but to the rationality of attempting to verbally support it. Where no such verbal defense is pursue, you have no objection. I'm just confused as to how this is in anyway considered an ethical philosophy.

This "problem" applies just as well to all ethics. If I prove beyond a reasonable doubt that X action is morally abhorrent or something but you're not motivated to act morally, what does it matter right? Yer beef is with moral internalism then, not discourse ethics. Furthermore saying you don't see the relevance doesn't change the fact that yer entire paragraph undermines the very idea that you don't. Look what you did. You saw my logic and countered with (what you believe to be) a logical counter. Yer implicitly accepting the rules upon which my conclusion necessitates itself, thus undermining yer entire point.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 9:12:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 8:34:08 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/2/2013 8:18:32 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/2/2013 7:53:37 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/2/2013 7:17:28 AM, 000ike wrote:
So lets make this simple. Do you agree that ethics must involve a constrain on human will - where one has the ability to perform a certain action but has reason to prohibit himself from performing it.

Yer asking the wrong questions. I think one has the ability to use force against someone sure. However, I don't think that one can conceptually argue in favor of it in any coherent way. My point is that certain actions just don't fit into rationally-predicated axioms of action.

The methodology is non-normative-- i.e., I'm not telling you what you should do, I'm telling you what you can possibly do if you stay within a rational framework.

The subject matter is ethical-- is murder defensible?, abortion, coercion, etc.

I understand that, but what is the significance of an indefensible action? So you've proven that it isn't quite possible to justify certain coercive actions. What now? You're not raising an objection to the action itself, but to the rationality of attempting to verbally support it. Where no such verbal defense is pursue, you have no objection. I'm just confused as to how this is in anyway considered an ethical philosophy.

This "problem" applies just as well to all ethics. If I prove beyond a reasonable doubt that X action is morally abhorrent or something but you're not motivated to act morally, what does it matter right?

No that's not what I'm saying. If you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that X action is morally abhorrent then you've raised an objection to the action itself. But what you're doing with discourse ethics is you're pointing out an inconsistency - where the problem lies with the simultaneous invocation of mutually exclusive principles. If we were to eliminate one of those principles and leave the other, then there's no contradiction. In the case where there is no discourse, and a person is simply using force but not attempting to justify it, you have no objection.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault