What is the Point of Ethics?

[Immanuel Can]

The irrationalists disagree with you.

...without rational grounds, of course.

[Skepdick]

...without rational grounds, of course.

Ironically. Rationality has no grounds.

[Immanuel Can]

Rationality has no grounds.

Self-defeating again.

[Skepdick]

Rationality has no grounds.

Self-defeating again.

Then it's "self-defeating".

It's also true.

[stevie]

Let's stick to the topic of this thead:

Referring to the definitions provided here I'd opt for 2 c "a guiding philosophy". Thus the point of ethics is simply an individual way/conduct of life that entails what is desired.

I wasn't getting away from it. But okay, let's pick it up where you suggest.

Then the first question might be, "How should we judge what should/should not be 'desired'?"

For, as I'm sure you know, people can "desire" many things, both good and bad.

See, you can only approach with your moralist outlook. But my outlook isn't a moralist's outlook. From my perspective it's not about what "should/should not be 'desired'" but about what one desires. Everybody can easily know whether some potential thoughtless momentary desires may entail unwanted consequences for her-/himself and then sort these out. But what kind of life does one want to live? What are one's values? And is there a corresponding philosophy that might support one's way of life as "a guiding philosophy"?

[Immanuel Can]

Let's stick to the topic of this thead:

I wasn't getting away from it. But okay, let's pick it up where you suggest.

Then the first question might be, "How should we judge what should/should not be 'desired'?"

For, as I'm sure you know, people can "desire" many things, both good and bad.

See, you can only approach with your moralist outlook. But my outlook isn't a moralist's outlook. From my perspective it's not about what "should/should not be 'desired'" but about what one desires.

That only works if we take for granted that there ought to be no impermissible desires.

But why would we think all desires are bound always and only to be good, or at least neutral? Why would we not want to forbid desires like the desire to rape, bully, lie, murder, steal or be a pedophile -- all of which human beings can clearly desire?

Are we then arguing for a truly amoral world...one in which rape, bullying, lying, murder, theft and pedophilia are accepted as normal and permissible?

I'm not saying you are. But I'm asking, if you're NOT arguing for this, and if you refuse any moral categories, then how do you justify resisting or preventing or interdicting these particular desires?

[stevie]

I wasn't getting away from it. But okay, let's pick it up where you suggest.

Then the first question might be, "How should we judge what should/should not be 'desired'?"

For, as I'm sure you know, people can "desire" many things, both good and bad.

See, you can only approach with your moralist outlook. But my outlook isn't a moralist's outlook. From my perspective it's not about what "should/should not be 'desired'" but about what one desires.

That only works if we take for granted that there ought to be no impermissible desires.

There are neither permissible nor impermissible desires because desires are just desires.

But why would we think all desires are bound always and only to be good, or at least neutral? Why would we not want to forbid desires like the desire to rape, bully, lie, murder, steal or be a pedophile -- all of which human beings can clearly desire?

Are we then arguing for a truly amoral world...one in which rape, bullying, lying, murder, theft and pedophilia are accepted as normal and permissible?

I'm not saying you are. But I'm asking, if you're NOT arguing for this, and if you refuse any moral categories, then how do you justify resisting or preventing or interdicting these particular desires?

Neither am I arguing for nor am I arguing against anything. I am expressing thoughts and using expressions that appear appropriate to me.

[Immanuel Can]

There are neither permissible nor impermissible desires because desires are just desires.

Then pedophilia or rape are not, per your worldview, "wrong"? Rape is "just rape," and pedophilia is "just pedophilia"?

I have to ask, because that seems the inevitable implication, doesn't it?

[stevie]

There are neither permissible nor impermissible desires because desires are just desires.

Then pedophilia or rape are not, per your worldview, "wrong"? Rape is "just rape," and pedophilia is "just pedophilia"?

I have to ask, because that seems the inevitable implication, doesn't it?

I have already repeatedly expressed that I do not share your moralist convention of judging "morally good" vs "morally bad". Neither do I share the conventions of rapists and pedophiles considering rape and pedophilia.

[Immanuel Can]

There are neither permissible nor impermissible desires because desires are just desires.

Then pedophilia or rape are not, per your worldview, "wrong"? Rape is "just rape," and pedophilia is "just pedophilia"?

I have to ask, because that seems the inevitable implication, doesn't it?

I have already repeatedly expressed that I do not share your moralist convention of judging "morally good" vs "morally bad". Neither do I share the conventions of rapists and pedophiles considering rape and pedophilia.

Rape and pedophilia are not "conventions," Stevie: if anything, they're "unconventional" or "anti-conventional."

What they are is actions that are premised on achieving (perverse) desires. And, according to amoralism, being instrumentally effective, they cannot be "wrong." They work, for the intended "desire."

And so you would have to say you have nothing to offer on the question "What is the point of ethics?" For an amoralist, ethics have, and can have, no point.

[stevie]

Then pedophilia or rape are not, per your worldview, "wrong"? Rape is "just rape," and pedophilia is "just pedophilia"?

I have to ask, because that seems the inevitable implication, doesn't it?

I have already repeatedly expressed that I do not share your moralist convention of judging "morally good" vs "morally bad". Neither do I share the conventions of rapists and pedophiles considering rape and pedophilia.

Rape and pedophilia are not "conventions," Stevie: if anything, they're "unconventional" or "anti-conventional."

I guess that rapists and active pedophiles have views to somehow justify their violation of laws. As all views these views are conventional even if only shared by a minority.

What they are is actions that are premised on achieving (perverse) desires. And, according to amoralism, being instrumentally effective, they cannot be "wrong."

But they cannot be "right" either. But considering public law they are illegal and will be sentenced.

And so you would have to say you have nothing to offer on the question "What is the point of ethics?" For an amoralist, ethics have, and can have, no point.

Oh dear ... how many times do I have to repeat my answer to the topic question?

Referring to the definitions provided here I'd opt for 2 c "a guiding philosophy". Thus the point of ethics is simply an individual way/conduct of life that entails what is desired.

So I have something to say but obviously I have nothing to say that satisfies your obsessive moralism.

[Dontaskme]

Rationality has no grounds.

Self-defeating again.

Rationality is irrational.

It's grounded in no ground.

Skepdick is on point.

[Lariliss]

Hello, I would like to join the conversation with a view of ethics for today's society of intertwined human and technology.
Meta-ethics, normative ethics bring theoretical and practical means, inquiring right or wrong behavior concepts. They go through times, social groups and personal perception.

My spotlight would be on applied ethics.

1. Biologists and psychologists wouldn’t have the knowledge and contribution to medicine and human development without numerous experiments with animals and humans themselves as well. So, where is the boundary? Sacrificing few in order to give remarkable benefit to others. There is no one answer to this question and probably no strict concept. Today, when our eyes are targeting exoplanets, extraterrestrial worlds, there is no solution for exploration without intervention (as far as I know).
2. AI is already reshaping society. It is worth mentioning that the technology itself is the only help in hazardous environments, being our eyes and arms. At the same time when it come to human - AI interaction, there are no permitted actions that would potentially harm a human, but there is no prohibited potential outcomes as well.
Education, communication, virtual travelling and partly new experiences.
And is most attractive for the society, as we won’t get to research programs in that billions numbers of users.
It is faster to do social research with bots overnight, which wouldn’t work and would lose it’s actuality due to billions of people unable to generate such a large amount of data.
The questions of the human/AI society have been there since the AI appeared. Let them appear for awareness and deeds.
AI is reshaping society in a way of data-driven technologies -appealing to the desire for certainty, and the yearning to understand and predict.
The algorithms faster and deeper to understanding and human behavior, education, control over human habits and target marketing.

[Belinda]

Lariliss wrote:

Sacrificing few in order to give remarkable benefit to others. There is no one answer to this question and probably no strict concept.

Utilitarianism is suited to politicians not private morality. There is always a struggle between claims for the individual and claims for the collective.

[Immanuel Can]

I guess that rapists and active pedophiles have views to somehow justify their violation of laws. As all views these views are conventional even if only shared by a minority.

Well, the "conventions" are the laws themselves, right? I mean, if laws have no reference to objective truth, then they are just conventions...no more.

So why should the pedophile or the murderer of thief not violate something that is, by our admission, no more than a "convention," so long as he remains confident that he can avoid the consequences? Indeed, why should he not congratulate himself on his cleverness in being able both to keep up the appearance of the convention, while at the same time getting all the fruit from the tree of his misdeeds?

What they are is actions that are premised on achieving (perverse) desires. And, according to amoralism, being instrumentally effective, they cannot be "wrong."

But they cannot be "right" either. [/quote]
Well, pragmatists use the word "right" to refer to something that "achieves a desired effect." And if we grant them that definition, then "right" would mean "successful." But morally, the word "right" doesn't apply to that, of course.

But considering public law they are illegal and will be sentenced.

If caught. But no malefactor thinks he will be caught...and who knows how many are right about that?

In any case, even if caught, he will be sentenced only by a law that is merely conventional. And while that may be equally unpleasant, it is not enough to tell us he's actually done anything wrong. He hasn't . He's only become a victim of conventional rules; and our right to sentence him is now in question, since our dislike of his pedophilia, or rape, or theft, is merely conventional.

...the point of ethics is simply an individual way/conduct of life that entails what is desired.

That's pragmatism. No more. Plug in any potentially immoral action to that formula, and you'll see that it gets excused.

So we might plug in a particular case as follows: "The point of ethics is simply for a pedophile predator ["individual"] to discover the best ruse ["way/conduct"] that will get him little boys ["what is desired"]."

Now, can you really say that's what it means?