Favourable Perception of Ethics: Positive vs Negative
Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:23 pm
In this thread (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10753) I present a way of looking at ethics as divided between two types of theories: the Positive Ethics and the Negative Ethics, or the difference between making rules on what you should do and on the contrary what you shouldn't do.
Both of these can hit the same target object and lead to the same results, however, I believe, and something for which is reflected in the pedagogic theory that you should avoid saying "no" to children and go around the word instead, is that when we perceive in our mind the object in question, we will also see its predicted fate, and we will in some way "feel" for this object, and we'll feel very much if it's something close to us. I argue therefore that we should employ Positive Ethics in talking about ethics and avoid Negative Ethics simply because positive ethics build and constructs and expands objects for which gives us the feeling of becoming greater and prospering and being empowered (we become ourselves through the objects we interact with), whereas Negative Ethics destroys and wither and tears objects to pieces giving a feeling of lessening and weakening of ourselves.
Logic prohibits us from believing much that we are becoming weaker because we are faced with a stop-sign, but logic is done in the aftermath of the initial experience and can only go so far as it has many limitations and boundaries on its reach.
Even in the case of murder and killing, it is indeed comforting to know that people are not (usually) murdering or killing one another or that anyone is likely to be a victim of this (in most part of western societies), however, even there, there is something more appealing in affirming the life of human beings than in talking and thinking about murder and killing. As in saying "we should preserve and increase the quality of each other's lives" than instead of saying "we should avoid killing and causing each other pain". Sometimes, for clarities sake, we need to say exactly what we are referring to (like when somebody is caused pain to, and we need to make people aware of it), but as a general rule it would work better to think about preserving life than to try and not think about killing.
Both of these can hit the same target object and lead to the same results, however, I believe, and something for which is reflected in the pedagogic theory that you should avoid saying "no" to children and go around the word instead, is that when we perceive in our mind the object in question, we will also see its predicted fate, and we will in some way "feel" for this object, and we'll feel very much if it's something close to us. I argue therefore that we should employ Positive Ethics in talking about ethics and avoid Negative Ethics simply because positive ethics build and constructs and expands objects for which gives us the feeling of becoming greater and prospering and being empowered (we become ourselves through the objects we interact with), whereas Negative Ethics destroys and wither and tears objects to pieces giving a feeling of lessening and weakening of ourselves.
Logic prohibits us from believing much that we are becoming weaker because we are faced with a stop-sign, but logic is done in the aftermath of the initial experience and can only go so far as it has many limitations and boundaries on its reach.
Even in the case of murder and killing, it is indeed comforting to know that people are not (usually) murdering or killing one another or that anyone is likely to be a victim of this (in most part of western societies), however, even there, there is something more appealing in affirming the life of human beings than in talking and thinking about murder and killing. As in saying "we should preserve and increase the quality of each other's lives" than instead of saying "we should avoid killing and causing each other pain". Sometimes, for clarities sake, we need to say exactly what we are referring to (like when somebody is caused pain to, and we need to make people aware of it), but as a general rule it would work better to think about preserving life than to try and not think about killing.