Levels of Ethics

[RWStanding]

Levels of Ethics
Ethics must be related to its appropriate level, unless we create a global state with no cultural diversity.
Every child has a right to education, is a universal right.
Every nation or state must ensure that children are educated.
If adequate education cannot be provided by a responsible state then it is to be aided by other states to achieve this.
A universal right to education does not give children the right to require education or domicile in another country or state than their own.
This may be expanded across the whole spectrum of ethics.

[Impenitent]

and what of the millions of children that aren't capable? and the millions who refuse?

-Imp

[RCSaunders]

Every child has a right to education, is a universal right.

Whose stopping them from getting an education. Or, are you saying, someone else is supposed to provide the education, because, in that case, you better get busy.

[Immanuel Can]

Every child has a right to education, is a universal right.

Nope. "Education" is a cultural artifact. And what constitutes "education" changes very much, depending on whether the culture's desire is to hunt or to build skyscrapers. Meanwhile, from where do you draw this "right"? Who gave or promises that right to children?

Every nation or state must ensure that children are educated.

Or what?

If adequate education cannot be provided by a responsible state then it is to be aided by other states to achieve this.

Eh? Did you just let one state invade alleged sovereign territory of another, merely on the allegation that their children are not being "educated"?

A universal right to education does not give children the right to require education or domicile in another country or state than their own.

If that's so, then children have no universal right to education, and again, your first point is undermined.

This may be expanded across the whole spectrum of ethics.

Nope, it can't. As you can see, it doesn't even add up on that one issue.

[KLewchuk]

WFT?

Levels of Ethics
Ethics must be related to its appropriate level, unless we create a global state with no cultural diversity.
Not true. Adler recognized the difference between "truth" and "taste". We don't want diversity in matters of moral truth; we do want diversity in matters of taste. Encouraging diversity in matters of taste provides diversity.

Every child has a right to education, is a universal right.
I think it was Bentham who said, rights are "nonsense on stilts".

Every nation or state must ensure that children are educated.
Must?

If adequate education cannot be provided by a responsible state then it is to be aided by other states to achieve this.
Not so fast. If the culture of a state is inferior and breeds ignorance, the only alternative would be for a better culture to invade it. Justifiable? Maybe, but we need to be very careful in suggesting war and cultural adjustment.


A universal right to education does not give children the right to require education or domicile in another country or state than their own.
Sure


This may be expanded across the whole spectrum of ethics.

[Advocate]

>This may be expanded across the whole spectrum of ethics.

I deconstruct your whole idea to be that the difference between a right and a privilege lies in how individual the need being met. Can you elaborate further?

[RCSaunders]

Every nation or state must ensure that children are educated.

Or what?

They'll be turned over to Boko Haram for their own education and edification.

[Immanuel Can]

Every nation or state must ensure that children are educated.

Or what?

They'll be turned over to Boko Haram for their own education and edification.

Yeah...wouldn't THAT be a lovely "education"...

Good thing they all don't have a "right" to it.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=477544 time=1603911379 user_id=9431]
[quote=RCSaunders post_id=477541 time=1603908436 user_id=16196]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=477438 time=1603828602 user_id=9431]

Or what?[/quote]
They'll be turned over to Boko Haram for their own education and edification.
[/quote]
Yeah...wouldn't THAT be a lovely "education"...

Good thing they all don't have a "right" to it. :shock:
[/quote]

If it's for the good of all society it makes a good deal more sense to consider it a right than a privilege. That's kinda the whole fucking point of society. It's not to put extra icing on the cake of those who can do perfectly well all on their own.

[Immanuel Can]

If it's for the good of all society it makes a good deal more sense to consider it a right than a privilege.

Question-begging. You can't make something a right merely by wanting it to be.

And which "education"? Boko Haram's?

[henry quirk]

It's not to put extra icing on the cake of those who can do perfectly well all on their own.

and it's not to put an extra burden on us either

[KLewchuk]

>This may be expanded across the whole spectrum of ethics.

I deconstruct your whole idea to be that the difference between a right and a privilege lies in how individual the need being met. Can you elaborate further?

"Right" is largely a deontological concept to which I do not adhere. However, I am a consequentialist and they often converge. For example, would it improve well-being to provide good education to children. I believe the answer is "yes". Yes, we ought to provide good education to children. However, the world is complex; if the idea is simply rich nations sending money to poor nations for something they consider "education"... this may not produce desirable consequences.

[Advocate]

[quote=KLewchuk post_id=477824 time=1604097396 user_id=20039]
[quote=Advocate post_id=477521 time=1603893691 user_id=15238]
>This may be expanded across the whole spectrum of ethics.

I deconstruct your whole idea to be that the difference between a right and a privilege lies in how individual the need being met. Can you elaborate further?
[/quote]

"Right" is largely a deontological concept to which I do not adhere. However, I am a consequentialist and they often converge. For example, would it improve well-being to provide good education to children. I believe the answer is "yes". Yes, we ought to provide good education to children. However, the world is complex; if the idea is simply rich nations sending money to poor nations for something they consider "education"... this may not produce desirable consequences.
[/quote]

Given that all words are a symbol for a set of attributes and boundary conditions, and that the word "rights" has a rather large role to play in society, can it not be defined without the concept of duty? Consequentialism is also insufficient by not accounting for motives. I'm still not clear how you delineate privilege. What do you call the "right to life" if not a right? Are you not "supposed to" be in charge of your own existence? If not, might-makes-right would be the law of the land and we all know where that leads, it's why societies form in the first place.

[Immanuel Can]

Are you not "supposed to" be in charge of your own existence?

Who is the one doing the "supposing" in your sentence? You are "supposed" by whom, to "be in charge of your own existence?"

Is it oneself? What would make us think one's personal supposition generates a universal "right" or creates any duty in others at all? So who "supposes" you ought to be in charge?

Is it society that's doing the "supposing"? But that's no better: it begs the question of why one society's feeling you have a duty to "be in charge of your own existence" should stick.

What about the whole world? But it's obvious not all societies believe in that right, so that's a non-starter. But even if they did, what makes that any more binding than the "supposal" of the individual or the single society? It might well be no more than a universal mistake.

So who is the doer of the "supposing" that makes us obligated to "be in charge of our own existences"?

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=477897 time=1604156733 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=477834 time=1604105421 user_id=15238]
Are you not "supposed to" be in charge of your own existence?
[/quote]
Who is the one doing the "supposing" in your sentence? You are "supposed" by whom, to "be in charge of your own existence?"

Is it [i]oneself[/i]? What would make us think one's personal supposition generates a universal "right" or creates any duty in others at all? So who "supposes" you ought to be in charge?

Is it [i]society[/i] that's doing the "supposing"? But that's no better: it begs the question of why one society's feeling you have a duty to "be in charge of your own existence" should stick.

What about [i]the whole world[/i]? But it's obvious not all societies believe in that right, so that's a non-starter. But even if they did, what makes that any more binding than the "supposal" of the individual or the single society? It might well be no more than a universal mistake.

So who is the doer of the "supposing" that makes us obligated to "be in charge of our own existences"?
[/quote]

Students. <tap><tap> Pay attention. What we have on screen here is a prime example of why philosophy goes nowhere. There's no point in asking a billion questions if you only have time to get 1000 answered and only 10 are relevant. Philosophy is about curating your questions as much as asking them.