The Second Question of Ethics
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
The Second Question of Ethics
Since there has been no disagreement that the first question of ethics is: "Do individuals consciously choose their behavior?," and apparently no disagreement that they do, the second question can be addressed:
What is the objective of ethical principles?
If there are actions which are identified as ethically "wrong," or, "bad," what difference does it make if anyone does them? If there are actions which are identified as ethically, "right," or, "good," what difference does it make if those acts are neglected. If there is no identifiable objective or purpose to conforming or not conforming to ethical principles, what is their point?
[Before answering this question, consider any possible answer, and follow it with, "so what?" "So what if the human race becomes extinct, "so what," if some God does not like it, "so what," if some people suffer, "so what," if you don't like it? If these questions sound nihilistic, they are, which is why they so desparately need to be answered.]
What is the objective of ethical principles?
If there are actions which are identified as ethically "wrong," or, "bad," what difference does it make if anyone does them? If there are actions which are identified as ethically, "right," or, "good," what difference does it make if those acts are neglected. If there is no identifiable objective or purpose to conforming or not conforming to ethical principles, what is their point?
[Before answering this question, consider any possible answer, and follow it with, "so what?" "So what if the human race becomes extinct, "so what," if some God does not like it, "so what," if some people suffer, "so what," if you don't like it? If these questions sound nihilistic, they are, which is why they so desparately need to be answered.]
-
- Posts: 8587
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
I suppose the objective could be to live life well and it seems to me that to live virtuously is probably the best way to make that happen. Of course, I fall off the wagon of virtue here and there and I don't think I'm quite as happy as I could be. But I get by.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
I think that is essentially correct.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:06 amI suppose the objective could be to live life well and it seems to me that to live virtuously is probably the best way to make that happen.
That is a totally different issue. If by virtue you mean those attributes in your life that lead to your own successful life and happiness, what could possibly induce you to intentionally behave to your own detriment?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:06 am Of course, I fall off the wagon of virtue here and there and I don't think I'm quite as happy as I could be. But I get by.
-
- Posts: 8587
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
Mental health issues.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 3:24 pmIf by virtue you mean those attributes in your life that lead to your own successful life and happiness, what could possibly induce you to intentionally behave to your own detriment?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:06 am Of course, I fall off the wagon of virtue here and there and I don't think I'm quite as happy as I could be. But I get by.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23102
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
Whose "objective" are you referring to?
Do you mean, "What would be the Supreme Being's objective in establishing ethical principles?" Or "What is the reason particular occupations and human undertakings are framed with ethical principles?" Or "Why do some people choose to act as if there are ethical principles?" Or do you mean, "Why do some people try to convince others that ethical principles are obligatory?" Or...?
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
It's none of my business, so please do not explain. If the issues are physiological, whatever behavior they might, "cause," is neither virtuous or vice. If the issues are purely psychological, they cannot cause your behavior, they can only cause feelings either of desire or aversion, but cannot make your choices for you.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:05 pmMental health issues.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 3:24 pmIf by virtue you mean those attributes in your life that lead to your own successful life and happiness, what could possibly induce you to intentionally behave to your own detriment?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:06 am Of course, I fall off the wagon of virtue here and there and I don't think I'm quite as happy as I could be. But I get by.
In any case, I'm sure you will overcome your issues. Just recognizing them is a right choice. We cannot change the past, but the future is always ours.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
You don't answer a question with question. I'm asking what you think the objective of ethical principles is, whatever you think the basis of that objective is.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 5:00 pmWhose "objective" are you referring to?
Do you mean, "What would be the Supreme Being's objective in establishing ethical principles?" Or "What is the reason particular occupations and human undertakings are framed with ethical principles?" Or "Why do some people choose to act as if there are ethical principles?" Or do you mean, "Why do some people try to convince others that ethical principles are obligatory?" Or...?
It is a perfectly straight question. I'm only looking for perfectly straight honest answers. Do you believe there are ethical principles? Do they have an objective? What is it?
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23102
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
Actually, I do...when I want to be sure I'm understanding the questioner aright, so I can answer on topic instead of responding to something he's NOT asking.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:12 pmYou don't answer a question with question.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 5:00 pmWhose "objective" are you referring to?
Do you mean, "What would be the Supreme Being's objective in establishing ethical principles?" Or "What is the reason particular occupations and human undertakings are framed with ethical principles?" Or "Why do some people choose to act as if there are ethical principles?" Or do you mean, "Why do some people try to convince others that ethical principles are obligatory?" Or...?
Seems only fair. Don't you want to be understood aright, RC?
I'll give you that.I'm only looking for perfectly straight honest answers.
Frank answers in order:Do you believe there are ethical principles? Do they have an objective? What is it?
Yes.
Depending on who is having the "objective," maybe. That's honestly the most I can say without knowing what you mean.
And "What is it?" Well, again, it depends on who is having the objective. How can we guess the motive when we don't know for sure who the objective-having person(s) is/are?
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
Please clarify. You believe there are ethical principles. But as far as an objective of the ethical principles, that, "depends on who is having the objective," is that right?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:45 pmFrank answers in order:Do you believe there are ethical principles? Do they have an objective? What is it?
Yes.
Depending on who is having the "objective," maybe. That's honestly the most I can say without knowing what you mean.
And "What is it?" Well, again, it depends on who is having the objective. How can we guess the motive when we don't know for sure who the objective-having person(s) is/are?
I'm not interested in you answering for anyone else. What I'm asking is if your ethical principles have an objective, and if they do, what is it?
You don't have to specify an objective. You could say you have ethical principles but they have no objective, or even that you suspect they have an objective but don't know what it is, or simply not answer at all. I'm not demanding an answer, only providing an opportunity to answer for those who choose to.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23102
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
Of course.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:29 pmPlease clarify. You believe there are ethical principles. But as far as an objective of the ethical principles, that, "depends on who is having the objective," is that right?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:45 pmFrank answers in order:Do you believe there are ethical principles? Do they have an objective? What is it?
Yes.
Depending on who is having the "objective," maybe. That's honestly the most I can say without knowing what you mean.
And "What is it?" Well, again, it depends on who is having the objective. How can we guess the motive when we don't know for sure who the objective-having person(s) is/are?
It's of no particular consequence that, say, a mere individual human may prefer particular ethical principles. Objectively, he/she may have some; it does not follow that those principles are rational, compulsory for others. A child, for example, may make the ethical precept that no person can play the ball outside the lines, with the objective of controlling the game. That's an objective.
Likewise, if a professional group holds certain ethical precepts, such as teachers' or doctors' ethical codes, they have no particular force for anybody not a member of the teachers' union or the medical college. The objective in that case is to regulate the behaviour within the profession...no more.
And the ethical preferences a whole society may be aimed at preserving their particular, favoured way of life. Meanwhile, another society has a very different ethical code, aimed at preserving a very different way of life. Those are their objectives.
So all these groups HAVE an objective, and an objective for which they make use of an ethical code. There is certainly some practical utility in setting up such arbitrary ethical codes.
But to say that the code itself is "objective" is, of course, quite a different thing. An ethical code may have an objective-in-view without having any particular universally-objective implications.
So the question, "Sez who?" matters, when we ask whether or not ethics have an objective. People may have many objectives, some legitimate and some perhaps not so legitimate. But the question, "Do humans sometimes make use of ethical codes for purposes they have?" is too trivial, and too empirically obvious to ask. Of course they do that. But saying so doesn't show any of that legitimate.
To teach mankind particular things about God.I'm not interested in you answering for anyone else. What I'm asking is if your ethical principles have an objective, and if they do, what is it?
Is that a straight enough answer?
-
- Posts: 4410
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
crowd control...
-Imp
-Imp
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23102
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
Not a bad answer...
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
Yes! Thank you very much.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:48 pmOf course.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:29 pmPlease clarify. You believe there are ethical principles. But as far as an objective of the ethical principles, that, "depends on who is having the objective," is that right?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:45 pm
Frank answers in order:
Yes.
Depending on who is having the "objective," maybe. That's honestly the most I can say without knowing what you mean.
And "What is it?" Well, again, it depends on who is having the objective. How can we guess the motive when we don't know for sure who the objective-having person(s) is/are?
It's of no particular consequence that, say, a mere individual human may prefer particular ethical principles. Objectively, he/she may have some; it does not follow that those principles are rational, compulsory for others. A child, for example, may make the ethical precept that no person can play the ball outside the lines, with the objective of controlling the game. That's an objective.
Likewise, if a professional group holds certain ethical precepts, such as teachers' or doctors' ethical codes, they have no particular force for anybody not a member of the teachers' union or the medical college. The objective in that case is to regulate the behaviour within the profession...no more.
And the ethical preferences a whole society may be aimed at preserving their particular, favoured way of life. Meanwhile, another society has a very different ethical code, aimed at preserving a very different way of life. Those are their objectives.
So all these groups HAVE an objective, and an objective for which they make use of an ethical code. There is certainly some practical utility in setting up such arbitrary ethical codes.
But to say that the code itself is "objective" is, of course, quite a different thing. An ethical code may have an objective-in-view without having any particular universally-objective implications.
So the question, "Sez who?" matters, when we ask whether or not ethics have an objective. People may have many objectives, some legitimate and some perhaps not so legitimate. But the question, "Do humans sometimes make use of ethical codes for purposes they have?" is too trivial, and too empirically obvious to ask. Of course they do that. But saying so doesn't show any of that legitimate.
To teach mankind particular things about God.I'm not interested in you answering for anyone else. What I'm asking is if your ethical principles have an objective, and if they do, what is it?
Is that a straight enough answer?
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23102
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
So...that doesn't make sense to me. Why would we think that the "second question of ethics" (to paraphrase) was something like, "What do people use ethics for?"
After all, we've skipped the whole question of whether or not there is any actual legitimacy in them, or in using them for anything.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Second Question of Ethics
That would make the objective of ethical principles a social thing, then, wouldn't it?
Would, "the objective of ethical principles is to make society nice," mean the same thing?