An ethical question for materialsit

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 754
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

An ethical question for materialsit

Post by bahman » Thu Oct 13, 2016 12:21 am

How any ethical system can be defined under materialism when everything is simply the result of cause and effect. How possibly we can define right from wrong based on cause and effect?

Ginkgo
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: An ethical question for materialsit

Post by Ginkgo » Thu Oct 13, 2016 1:40 am

bahman wrote:How any ethical system can be defined under materialism when everything is simply the result of cause and effect. How possibly we can define right from wrong based on cause and effect?

Consequence theory claims that rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the effect an action has. Utilitarianism is a good example of consequence theory. Basically, the theory holds that an action is good if it produces good consequences and bad if it produces the opposite.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 754
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An ethical question for materialsit

Post by bahman » Thu Oct 13, 2016 1:52 am

Ginkgo wrote:
bahman wrote: How any ethical system can be defined under materialism when everything is simply the result of cause and effect. How possibly we can define right from wrong based on cause and effect?
Consequence theory claims that rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the effect an action has. Utilitarianism is a good example of consequence theory. Basically, the theory holds that an action is good if it produces good consequences and bad if it produces the opposite.
That I understand. Everything in materialism is the result of cause and effect in the core. This base does not provide a good substrate that we can derive a ethical system from. In another word, there is no objective morality within materialism.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: An ethical question for materialsit

Post by Ginkgo » Thu Oct 13, 2016 2:32 am

bahman wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:
bahman wrote: How any ethical system can be defined under materialism when everything is simply the result of cause and effect. How possibly we can define right from wrong based on cause and effect?
Consequence theory claims that rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the effect an action has. Utilitarianism is a good example of consequence theory. Basically, the theory holds that an action is good if it produces good consequences and bad if it produces the opposite.
That I understand. Everything in materialism is the result of cause and effect in the core. This base does not provide a good substrate that we can derive a ethical system from. In another word, there is no objective morality within materialism.
Utilitarianism philosophers would claim that their theory is objective. They attempted to lay down an objective principle for determining when an action was right or wrong. They called this maxim the principle of utility.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1489
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: An ethical question for materialsit

Post by Terrapin Station » Thu Oct 13, 2016 2:10 pm

bahman wrote:How any ethical system can be defined under materialism when everything is simply the result of cause and effect. How possibly we can define right from wrong based on cause and effect?
When we're just talking about things like water vapor and lava and minerals and so on, do you agree that things have different properties? Would you say that those different properties arise somehow out of "simple cause and effect"?

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1489
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: An ethical question for materialsit

Post by Terrapin Station » Thu Oct 13, 2016 2:14 pm

bahman wrote:That I understand. Everything in materialism is the result of cause and effect in the core. This base does not provide a good substrate that we can derive a ethical system from. In another word, there is no objective morality within materialism.
That's not necessarily the case, although materialists who believe in objective morality, just like dualists who believe in objective morality, have a lot of work to do in order to present a plausible evidential case for the claim that there is objective morality.

The more important thing to focus on here, though, is the notion that if there's no objective morality, it's a problem for morality in general. It isn't. There is no objective morality. We have no problem creating ethical systems despite the fact that there is no objective morality.

Walker
Posts: 4080
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: An ethical question for materialist

Post by Walker » Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:09 pm

bahman wrote:How any ethical system can be defined under materialism when everything is simply the result of cause and effect. How possibly we can define right from wrong based on cause and effect?
The how is defined and made possible by intent.

*

Intent is the missing ingredient.

“Definition of Intention*:
The definition of intention is a mental factor that functions to move its primary mind to the object.”

“Function of Intention*:
The principal function of intention is to create karma. Of the three types of karma, or action – body actions, verbal actions, and mental actions – intention itself is mental action. However, it is also the cause of bodily and verbal actions, because all our bodily and verbal actions are preceded by mental actions.”

* Understanding the Mind, The Nature and Power of the Mind, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

surreptitious57
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: An ethical question for materialsit

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu Oct 20, 2016 8:03 am

bahman wrote:
Everything in materialism is the result of cause and effect in the core. This base does not provide a good substrate that we can derive an ethical system from. In another word there is no objective morality within materialism
There is no such thing as objective morality. And so materialism has nothing to do with it because objective morality can not exist in any other system either. The fundamental principles which govern secular morality are consensus and utilitarianism and reciprocal altruism. Consensus is arrived at through inter subjectivity and it is necessary as a means of establishing what is morally acceptable and what is not at any given time Utilitarianism is a logical reference since it focuses up on the least harmful of options. Reciprocal altruism is the Golden Rule by another name Now it is of course to be found in all the major belief systems but it can also be adopted as secular morality since it is not religious in principle

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 601
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: An ethical question for materialsit

Post by Conde Lucanor » Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:11 am

bahman wrote:How any ethical system can be defined under materialism when everything is simply the result of cause and effect. How possibly we can define right from wrong based on cause and effect?
Is there anything that is not simply the result of cause and effect?

surreptitious57
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: An ethical question for materialsit

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat Oct 22, 2016 7:17 am

bahman wrote:
How any ethical system can be defined under materialism when everything is simply the result
of cause and effect. How possibly we can define right from wrong based on cause and effect
The laws of physics have got absolutely nothing to do with the formulation of ethics
determined through inter subjectivity. The two are not related to each other at all

Walker
Posts: 4080
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: An ethical question for materialsit

Post by Walker » Sat Oct 22, 2016 7:47 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
bahman wrote:
How any ethical system can be defined under materialism when everything is simply the result
of cause and effect. How possibly we can define right from wrong based on cause and effect
The laws of physics have got absolutely nothing to do with the formulation of ethics
determined through inter subjectivity. The two are not related to each other at all
Sure they’re related. Physical movement is either towards or away from balance. Needs determine ethics in folks, and need determines ethics in cultures. The natural physical processes of meeting needs causes motion towards balance in the human form, which because form is physical, is affected by physical forces that also determine need. Folks and their ways, which represent a wide array of variables, are always a part of the material cause and effect equation.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: An ethical question for materialsit

Post by Harbal » Sat Oct 22, 2016 8:08 pm

Walker wrote: Sure they’re related. Physical movement is either towards or away from balance. Needs determine ethics in folks, and need determines ethics in cultures. The natural physical processes of meeting needs causes motion towards balance in the human form, which because form is physical, is affected by physical forces that also determine need. Folks and their ways, which represent a wide array of variables, are always a part of the material cause and effect equation.
Did you intend to write a load of unintelligible garble, Walker, or was it an accident?

surreptitious57
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: An ethical question for materialsit

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat Oct 22, 2016 8:53 pm

Walker wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
bahman wrote:
How any ethical system can be defined under materialism when everything is simply the result
of cause and effect. How possibly we can define right from wrong based on cause and effect
The laws of physics have got absolutely nothing to do with the formulation of ethics
determined through inter subjectivity. The two are not related to each other at all
Sure they re related. Physical movement is either towards or away from balance. Needs determine ethics in folks and need determines ethics in cultures. The natural physical processes of meeting needs causes motion towards balance in the human form which because form is physical is affected by physical forces that also determine need. Folks and their ways which represent a wide array of variables are always a part of the material cause and effect equation
That makes no sense and so once again :

There is precisely zero correlation between physical motion and group ethics
Physical forces have nothing at all to do with inter subjective moral consensus

Walker
Posts: 4080
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: An ethical question for materialsit

Post by Walker » Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:13 am

Let's it put it this way.

Physical forces certainly have something to do with group ethics.
e.g. mob violence, combat situations, the rape of Sabine women, and so on.

The ethics are formed by the group in the physical situation, and all the shared variables present in that physical situation.

Ethics do not exist without motion.

The motion can be thought motion, voice motion which includes the physical movement of writing down the ethics into concepts, or the ethics of action which of course requires motion.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 754
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An ethical question for materialsit

Post by bahman » Sun Oct 23, 2016 6:14 pm

Conde Lucanor wrote:
bahman wrote: How any ethical system can be defined under materialism when everything is simply the result of cause and effect. How possibly we can define right from wrong based on cause and effect?
Is there anything that is not simply the result of cause and effect?
That was not my point. The problem is how you can define an ethical system based on cause and effect.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest